UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2017: +0.63 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.63 deg. C, up from the September, 2017 value of +0.54 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

Why Are the Satellite and Surface Data Recently Diverging?

John Christy and I are a little surprised that the satellite deep-layer temperature anomaly has been rising for the last several months, given the cool La Nina currently attempting to form in the Pacific Ocean.

Furthermore, the satellite and surface temperatures seem to be recently diverging. For the surface temperatures, I usually track the monthly NCEP CFSv2 Tsfc averages computed by WeatherBell.com to get some idea of how the most recent month is shaping up for global temperatures. The CFSv2 Tsfc anomaly usually gives a rough approximation of what the satellite shows… but sometimes it differs significantly. For October 2017 the difference is now +0.23 deg. C (UAH LT warmer than Tsfc).

The following charts show how these two global temperature measures have compared for every month since 1997 (except that September, 2017 is missing at the WeatherBell.com website):

Monthly comparison since 1979 of global average temperature anomalies (relative to the monthly 1981-2010 averages) between UAH LT deep-layer lower tropospheric temperature and the surface temperatures in the CFSv2 reanalysis dataset at WeatherBell.com.

As can be seen, there have been considerably larger departures between the two measures in the past, especially during the 1997-1998 El Nino. Our UAH LT product is currently using 3 satellites (NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-B) which provide independent monthly global averages, and the disagreement between them is usually very small.

While we can expect individual months to have rather large differences between surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies (due to the time lag involved in excess surface warming to lead to increased convection and tropospheric heating), some of the differences in the above plot are disturbingly large and persistent. The 1997-98 El Nino discrepancy is pretty amazing. As I understand it, the NCEP CFS reanalysis dataset is the result of collaboration between NOAA/NCEP and NCAR, and uses a wide range of data types in a physically consistent fashion. I probably need to bring in one of the dedicated surface-only datasets for further comparison…I don’t recall the HadCRUT4 Tsfc dataset having this large of disagreements with our satellite deep-layer temperatures. Unfortunately, these other datasets usually take a few weeks before they are updated with the most recent month.

…UPDATE…(fixed)…
…the 2nd of the following two plots has been fixed)…

Here’s the comparison between UAH LT and Tsfc from the HadCRUT4 dataset, through September 2017. Note that the difference with the satellite temperatures isn’t as pronounced as with CFSv2 Tsfc data, but the HadCRUT4 data has more of an upward trend:

As in the previous figure, but now CFSv2 Tsfc data has been replaced by HadCRUT4 surface data (with the latter having anomalies recalculated relative to the 1981-2010 base period).

The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

I know that. That is why I said small upticks don’t mean anything unless the 13th month average surpasses the peak of the “Godzilla” El Nio 2015/2016. Yes it is starting to go up but it is likely and will start trending downwards soon and will not pass the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nio. the sleepers are gonna continue to sleep sleep sleep sleep sleep and the truth seekers are gonna continue to seek seek seek seek seek. Nothing you can do to change my mind nor others.

Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years…
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variabilty.

What really strikes me is, why was NOAA-11 retired in 1994, reinstated in august 1997 and withdrawn again 4/1998!

And where’s NOAA-13? Well it failed! ( Don’t ever use the number 13 in space-matters 🙂 ).

I have an idea on what happened then, excuse me if I am wrong. The temperature satellite program was “undermanned” ( 1993 ), as far as operational satellites concerned, and they just had to cope with the remaining satellites
( NOAA-11, 12 and later from july 1995 NOAA-14).

NOAA-11 was retired from service in december 1994, but for some reason was “re-drafted” for a brief period from august 1997 to april 1998 .

Why ?

I have no idea, but my guess is that it might have something to do with the up-coming of an extreme El Nin 97/98 which they wanted to have as much data about as possible. So they decided to pull 11 “up from the dust”.

But what about the instruments aboard 11, were they
still fully functional and intact after almost 2 years 8 months?

I have a clear suspicion that the data after august 97 appears faulty!

The statement at the end of this link seems to confirm my hunch, that something might have been wrong with the instruments aboard NOAA-11 :

“The visible channel on NOAA-11 was much noisier, with a detrended standard deviation of /spl sim/3%, indicating that this satellite experienced month-to-month sensitivity changes. Data processed for November 1988-February 1991 showed a linear increase in sensitivity of 0.5%/year.”

It is also of interest that NOAA-15 ( launched august 1998 ) was equipped with a new version of the Microwave Sounding Unit, namely the Advanced MSU ( Wikipedia ).

All in all this info make me suspect that something must be wrong with the satellite-data for this period, but I have no chance to see if I am right or not, so therefore I turn Your attention to my observations.

I would think the amount of heat moved northward by the hurricanes etc, had a substantial influence. It was certainly warmer here after the hurricanes moved by – one to the east of us, one to the west.

Barry I await anxiously for the delivery of my car. I am hoping for a Tesla S but I probably should expect a matchbox car instead.

I did volunteer the fact that I had some inside information, so the bet wasn’t fair. The regression to the mean heuristic, which I suspect Barry used, would also have been my choice in the absence of the Aqua satellite data.

Unfortunately this heuristic isn’t that effective with what appears to be a non stationary data set.

I hope I am not too late with my prediction. The aqua satellite data seems to indicate, with the first 25 days in, a value of 0.39 C, so I will go with this value. The standard error (unbiased ie. no serial correlation for either data set) is 0.05 C gives a range from 0. 29 to 0.49 C.

Regarding the long and somewhat distracting disclaimer for the 13 month running average: would it not be simpler to plot the 12 month average and forego the disclaimer? With the amount of data in the plot nowadays, the half-month lag between where the 12-month average is calculated (start/end of the months) and where the monthly averages are calculated (middle of the months) probably isn’t even visible.

My apologies in advance if you answered this question already (many times) before.

The point I was trying to make is that you simply don’t plot the 12-month average on the center of the month.

Should be simple to plot the 12-month running average on the start/end of the month while the monthly averages are on the center of the month? The data table might become messy (with the time axis having center-month and start/end-of-month values), but in the graph, nobody would even see it (or care)?

“Then I would need a long and somewhat distracting disclaimer stating that the 12 month average doesn’t quite apply to the center month it is plotted on.”

That’s not quite true, because your data points are averages over months, and so represent the midpoint of each month. That is, your data represent times of 0.5/12, 1.5/12, 2.5/12, … 11.5/12, not 1/12, 2/12, 3/12,…12/12. The average is referred to the time which is the average of the sample times, and the average of the former is 0.5. So, a 12 month average of monthly averages does reflect the midpoint of the year.

A 13 point average applies at the average of -0.5/12,0.5/12,1.5/12,…11.5/12, which is at 0.46 years, so it is actually biased from the midpoint.

A concern is that there is a strong annual signal in the data. Let’s say I have a signal measured nominally in 30 day months that goes as sin(pi/6*t). I average this for t = 1,2,… 12, and I get zero. I tack one more month onto it, and I get an average of 0.0385. So, I am introducing a spurious annual component into the measurement.

It is not, however, a terribly significant concern if successive years overlap by one month, because the average for t = 1,2,…13 is 0.0385, but the average of 13,15,…24 is also 0.0385. Which means that the yearly component has aliased to a bias, and we don’t care much about a bias, because the baseline is arbitrary to begin with.

Bottom line: it’s not a big deal either way, but 12 month averaging is likely to raise fewer flags, leading to discussions like this.

Or better still, since the stated aim (in Dr Spencer’s disclaimer) is that the “13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data”, and given that this is a regularly sampled time series, why not simply use one of the numerous potential approaches used by engineers to remove high frequencies from data. e.g. a zero-phase digital filter with a corner frequency of 1/1 year. That would allow every point to be plotted at the same time as the sampled data, irrespective of what the phase of those samples is. It would also provide the benefit of having the smoothed line extend to very ends of the data set.

Another option is to use a Loess filter with the appropriate smoothing parameter that corresponds to a 12 month average. This has the advantage that it outputs smoothed and centered data that includes the last 6 months.

Sorry, but this is wrong , zero phase filters are only non-causal filters, meaning that they need to know the future data … which means that there is no filter that you could apply for the month of October, that would be zero phase.
And besides the 13 months moving average filter, used by Dr Spencer , shifted in time by 6 months as he did … is a zero phase filter, but only because of the 6 months delay ( and the fact that a moving average is symmetrical and “even”. )
There is nothing wrong about using a 13 months moving average filter, except for the fact that it far from being the best filter to filter out the high frequencies, as the FFT of a moving average filter is a sinc function with a tail that decrease slowly with frequency… It would be easy to suppress the high frequencies with any good standard lowpass filter with the appropriate cutoff frequency. A very minor change to the 13 months average filter , would be to divide the values of the first and last month by 2 when doing the sum , the filter would then be more like an average over one year, while cutting the high frequencies a little better than the 13 months moving average filter ( but the filter would still need to applied with a 6 months shift.

There’s no reason to prefer a 12-month running average over 13-month. The difference is unimportant. Different institutes have made different choices (21-point binomial filter anyone?) at different times.

The WxBELL GMSTA reported for month-to-date through Oct 31 was 0.39C, which is 0.24C lower than the TLT for October. The WxBELL September GMSTA was 0.284C, so October was up by 0.09C.

There was a big high spike in the tropical Pacific temperatures in April and May with a smaller high spike in June – an almost mini El Nino event. Perhaps the TLT Sep-Oct upward spike is a delayed response to this very weak near El Nino event, similar to what we see with major El Nino events.

There are different reason of why it is different. Calculations from satellites observation are very uncertain. They are also more sensitive to variability. More generally, they are not an estimate of the same thing…
Interesting to see that you didn’t now that as well.

If satellite measurements are “very uncertain”, why do the RSS and UAH satellite measures correlate at 0.95 with each other (monthly anomalies since 1979), but HadCRUT4 and CFSv2 only correlate at 0.75 over the same period?

you obviously think the satellite adjustments are bigger than the surface data adjustments. Wrong. We worry about adjustments of hundredths of a degree, the surface thermometer people deal with adjustments 10 times as large.

If I read SkS, I might end up thinking something else. But I do guess you should not put time in something as stupid as trying to debunk what Cook writes about you as we have a limited time on the Earth to work on.

I think satellite drift slowly so it is difficult to adjust. Also there are very few satellites (so it is difficult to adjust) but a lot of thermometers.
Just look at difference between uah rss or different versions.

Wow. Really? What does that have to do with anything? This is professional science not kindergarden grammar class. Perhaps next time you should consider making your conter arguments more scientific related.

And FYI I do know the difference between “there” and “their”. For example:

Look at all those global warming shills with THEIR billions of tax dollars in THEIR tax wallet. how did they get THERE? Oh… I know! By misleading the public into thinking that THERE is global warming and we are the cause of it and by slamming us with all THEIR carbon taxes to promote THEIR fake agenda. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

That makes no sense, Mickey. Slow, predictable drift is the easiest thing in the world to adjust. And, having a few satellites makes the measurements more, not less, homogeneous – you don’t have to take account of variations between all the hundreds of different instruments. And, the satellite measurements cover almost the entire Earth uniformly, whereas the ground measurements are sparse.

So, the measurement didn’t come out the way you expected. It’s only a couple of months of apparently anomalous measurements. Either the long term signal will assert itself sooner or later, or the divergence will be persistent, and a cause will have to be determined. You just have to have patience.

The other think to note is amongst the surface data sets, the Waetherbell data is the odd man out and correlates relatively poorly with the other surface data sets (0.74 to 0.81). In comparison the correlations between the other 4 data sets are much better (0.92 to 0.98) .

No wonder Roy chose to emphasize Weatherbell data.

Sounds like time to go back to the drawing board for Roy and work on version 7 as UAH v6 seems to be a far inferior product than v5.6 . Maybe Roy should reinstate v5.6 . The trend would also more closely match every other data set, including Weatherbell, but that may not suit his narrative.

Iare all figures higher than a flat line an anomaly. There seem to be a lot of them in the last few years. Also, 4realz opinions do not even match Roy Spensors, who believes the globe is warming, albeit by natural processes.

Graham, you are correct. There has been no statistically significant global warming for almost two decades now. Although the earth has been warming since then from the late 1800s it is a natural warming cycle that occurs every couple 100 years and that is why we are not warming up anymore and we are heading into a cooling trend like before the dalton minimmum back in the 1800s. The climate is changing, weather is getting weirder, seasons are getting screwed up and out of flux. I get it. But it has always been a natural cyclical pattern that man has no detectable influence over no matter how much fossil fuels we burn into the atmosphere. I believe in natural cycles. I believe the climate is changing. I believe hurricanes are getting worse and so are extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts, flood, hail, snow etc but it is not caused by us. Mother Nature is sending us a message I suggest we pull our heads out of the sand immediately and start heeding it.

If Mother Nature is sending us a message, what is it? If the increase in the trend line is another part of a natural cycle, why would MN send us a warning (especially as you say we have no influence on global temperatures, regardless of how much carbon we release into the atmosphere)? Also, I dont understand your comment on lack of statistical warming over the last 2 decades. Are you using the peak El Nio as the initial reference point. I hope not, this would be a high level of buffoonery.

That the sun is going into hibernation and we are about to plunge into a grand solar minimum just like we did back in the 1800s and 1600s. Examples of this are dalton minimmum and maunder minimmum. This isn’t something that will happen over night. You still have time to prepare. Do your homework and good luck in your preparations

“The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
So about 650 years

“The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
And:
“The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still controversial.”

I could look up the dark ages or other warm periods

But anyhow it seems to me that medieval Warm period as “counted” by wiki, is time of peak warmer times of period, and seems to me we might might not be in the peak warmer times of this present warming period.
Or if we dive back into temperatures of LIA within 50 years, I think it would counted as never leaving LIA.
Or in period of 1300 to 1900 I think there were a couple “failed attempts of warming” and currently at a very promising attempt to leave LIA. But haven’t reached the peak
time of this warming period.
Or think it will be centuries which are warmer and as warm as it is currently- though it’s possible that we are screwed.

Well global warming refer generally to a surface temp index.
indeed it is good that you ask at a point view that UAH is not surface.–

There is no surface 5 feet above the surface.
Surface temp refers to “air surface” which is not same the ground which is actually the surface.
Though ocean surface is pretty close to ocean air surface temperatures.

All appointees at DOE, EPA, etc and underlings had opportunity to point out flaws in the science, or conclusions of report.

This was all they could muster:
”
The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the reports authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.
“

The importance of how much UAH differed from other data sets during the 1998-9 El Nino cannot be understated. Without that huge spike in UAH temperatures, the favorite talking point of the anti-AGW crowd for a decade and a half would have died a much shorter death. I just heard yesterday a quote from another Trump nominee that global temperatures stopped rising over ten years ago. Ted Cruz was fond of saying that “the satellites show no warming”. The “pause” lives on in the blogosphere even though it is nothing more than cherry picking a start date of 1998 in the UAH data set for comparison.

–I just heard yesterday a quote from another Trump nominee that global temperatures stopped rising over ten years ago.–

And the Trump nominee was and is correct.

“Ted Cruz was fond of saying that the satellites show no warming. ”

The satellites are suppose to accurately measure global temperature- if didn’t show warming and cooling then they would be inaccurate.
But in terms of a trend, the satellites are not showing any significant warming trend- nothing that indicate global temperature will be 2 C warmer within a century of time or temperature projection from Climate models are over estimating
future warming.

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

The satellite data definitely is suggesting 1.3 C for a century, which on top of the warming that already has occurred would make 2C. ”

If politicians if talking about 2 C rise from the time period of Little Ice age, it should be noted that no one wants to live in one the coldest period of the Holocene- that would be psychotic to want this- though politicians have a consistent track record of wanting the wrong thing- which on numerous occasions as resulted in tens of millions of people being killed with lots of human suffering.

No one thinks all warming since the Little Ice Age was caused by human activity- that also would be crazy.

If average temperature were to lower by .5 C, that would kill people and cause suffering- and everyone knows this.

Finally if simply using a trend determines future average temperature, we had no need of using expensive “supercompters”- why waste tens of billions of public monies.

“Not sure where your data is coming from, but I imagine somewhere near where you keep your wallet. ”

Yeah money from my wallet is related to climate models.
More important in terms of dollars wasted, is trillions of dollars over the years related to all the unneeded laws which are paying for government corruption related to solving “global warming”

Trillions of dollars wasted with zero wanted result other government oppression and corruption. Or the “future of the children” being flushed down a huge toilet.

German’s measured amount is about 800 billion on wind and solar which caused a increased in electricity costs and increase in CO2 emission. Essentially, or actually, a huge tax upon the poorest majority of Germans. And graft for those involved in the corruption.
Germany is a small country and it’s stupidity is most obvious. And I would say German accounting is better than most.

There isn’t a huge difference between these communist politican leaders and the politicians in general.
The difference is some politicians are restrained and these communist leaders were in charge.
That’s the big difference,

Because they used coal power energy to provide electrical energy when there wasn’t enough wind and sunlight.
They also had abundance of wind and sunlight in which the electrical power generated couldn’t be used and/or requiring other electrical powerplants to run inefficiently. And coal
power has advantage in terms dealing with fluctuating electrical power needs as compared to more efficient ways to make electrical power and to make electrical power which causes less CO2 emission per MW hour of power.
Or wind and solar make coal more competitive as compared other ways to make electrical power with lower CO2 emission costs.

Or quite simply, Germany is adding more coal powerplants into it’s energy mix because it makes more money compared to other ways.

gbaikie: “Because they used coal power energy to provide electrical energy when there wasnt enough wind and sunlight.” As opposed to both when there isn’t as well as when there is?

As for “Or quite simply, Germany is adding more coal powerplants into its energy mix because it makes more money compared to other ways”: The reason for more coal isn’t wind and solar (although those are more expensive and driving up Germany’s electric bills), but Germany’s wrongheaded decommissioning of its nuclear power plants.

“At one point this month renewable energy sources briefly supplied close to 90 percent of the power on Germanys electric grid. But that doesnt mean the worlds fourth-largest economy is close to being run on zero-carbon electricity. In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.”

“renewable sources accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in 2015. The country is now the worlds largest solar market. Germanys carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.”

Contradicts your statement that co2 emissions higher as a result of these policies.

Choice of coal vs gas or nuclear seems to be political or fear based, ie Russian gas, Fukushima.

renewable sources accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in 2015. The country is now the worlds largest solar market. Germanys carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.

Contradicts your statement that co2 emissions higher as a result of these policies.–

The policies I am referring started a decade or so before now, and 1990 level is almost 3 decade ago. 1990 level is picked
because it was at high level [why I will not get into] and was Germany’s Emission was dropping before these policies were invented.
It’s rising now, because of these policies. Or if policies worked, they should be dropping and they are not.

–The reason for more coal isnt wind and solar (although those are more expensive and driving up Germanys electric bills), but Germanys wrongheaded decommissioning of its nuclear power plants.–

Well more nuclear power used, gives less Co2 emission- and we had decades proving this.
But nuclear power has to be operated competently.

It’s possible the German nuclear power plants were badly managed with no easy solution to improve it.
Second if one has highly varying electrical grid, it’s going increase the costs of operating a nuclear power- and that generally makes an incompetently run nuclear power plant more dangerous.

I would favor laws outlawing politicians from ever managing the operations of a nuclear plant plant- because they are inherently and demonstratively incompetent at doing anything.

Warm is the word no doubt about it. Can not say anything to counter that fact.

Time will tell but if the global temperatures stay up like this, given cooling overall sea surface temperatures, given La Nina tendency if not outright La Nina coming, given very low solar coming into play, given above average snow cover, above average cosmic ray counts then rethinking would have to be done.

It is still early but if by next summer we are still running high with the above conditions in play then my view will be in trouble.

Humans are having little effect upon Ocean temperatures, ocean temperatures are global average temperatures.
But we are recover from the cooler period of the Little ice age- a time period of cooler ocean temperatures and had periods of sea levels falling [slightly]. In last century we not had sea levels lowering and continue to recovery from LIA or continue to have warming in the Holocene period.
No indicate that Holocene period is ending and enter a glacial period.
Or if the Little Ice Age wasn’t “little” there would be evidence of the ending of the Holocene period.

“Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variability”

Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variabilty.

In 1958 atmpospheric CO2 levels were only around 315 ppm. This would not be sufficient to completely overwhelm natural variability – hence the fluctuations.

However, we’re not seeing decades long negative slopes now. A pause of a few years – perhaps but no long term cooling trend. I’ve followed the AGW debate for a number of years and I think I disagree with Roy that the cause of the warming is unknown. I don’t necessarily think it will be harmful but I’m convinced it is related to the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere.

I agree, we haven’t seen decades long negative slopes, as we saw from about the year 1000 AD to 1700 AD ……

Men, there’s a whole forest out there, and if we’re looking at four decades of data, it amounts to staring at one tree.

I agree that the science would indicate that, due to our rise from 280 to just a pinch above 400 ppm that some warming is due to CO2/GHG’s, but we have no idea to what degree and that warming is just buried in the noise.

Since the Industrial Revolution the plight of humans has improved tremendously, and cheap energy in the driving force. But we, as humans, are flawed, so let’s search for the apocalypse, it’s ingrained in us as part of the human condition. Oh Noah, where art thou ……..

We are not going backwards, that’s a fact, there will be riots in the street so that the masses can charge their cell phones …. and if we do go backwards it’s only going to hurt the peons, certainly not those well placed like Gore and DiCaprio. Renewables aren’t ready. Either give us fossil fuels, or give nuclear. Pick your poison.

Obviously, from all the data and theory at hand it is quite reasonable to suspect that the anthropic CO2 is indeed the main culprit and it is much less reasonable to contend that the cause of GW is “unknown”.

Yet it is quite true that the cause is not yet established and might still be of natural origin because we do not know enough about natural variability and are not capable to predict accurately enough the climate sensitivity.

Now whenever facing a (possible) threat alarmism is almost certainly an inappropriate posture. It triggers usually just idiotic behavior.

In fact, in present instance, we merely cannot even act and curb seriously the CO2 emissions without doing more harm than good. The laws of Physics and technology do not allow it right now and that cannot be modified by politicians or activists.

Your comment seemed very rational and an intelligent assessment of climate concerns.

I do think maybe if we could open up fusion energy it might satisfy most. I like the polywell concept (using electrostatic repulsion rather than magnetic confinement). Bussard was the chief designer of this process, the hope given was that single proton hydrogen (quite abundant and non radioactive) and boron (also very abundant) could be fused to release energy with the byproduct normal helium and no neutrons so radioactive shielding from a neutron flux would not be needed. Also, without a neutron flux, the materials used to build the confinement would not become radioactive. Without the threat of radioactive waste, the power plants could be smaller and require less manpower and be considerably lower cost than the deuterium/tritium reactors using magnetic confinement (which also release neutrons in the reaction).

It could be a dream too good to be true. I have read it would take about $100 million to build a prototype to test if the hypothesis is valid. I think the government could use some of the money they waste on wind energy subsidies to at least check this idea out and see if there is any hope to pursue it.

Yes, thanks. Indeed, B11 with H1 fusion is potentially promising because it would be very clean and fuel is naturally abundant. Besides polywell concept there is also the (pulsed) Z-machine (20 billions K obtained).http://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/

As you point out if fusion of H2 with H3 is tamed it would not be “clean”. And that’s also because one could hardly economically resist and use the fast neutrons to initiate fast-neutron fission and breed fissionable fuel by surrounding the fusion chamber with a blanket of U238 or Th and so get 10 times more energy…

Obviously, from all the data and theory at hand it is quite reasonable to suspect that the anthropic CO2 is indeed the main culprit and it is much less reasonable to contend that the cause of GW is unknown.–

What is obvious is the urban heat island effect are making urban environments unnaturally warmer by a very considerable amount- such as 5 C warmer.
And what obvious is more people live in such urban environments and CO2 levels are unrelated to causing such unnatural warmer conditions.

In terms of nature, nature has been in much warmer condition then present average global temperature.
And in terms of nature, the tropical region has average temperature of about 27 C- and life likes it.
And even humans, being a tropical creature, likes the warmer conditions in the tropics.
Human evolution has been human entering regions outside of the tropics and adapting to these colder condition, and have done this using human technology.

And much of these land regions have average temperature of about 10 C or lower.
Much of vast land regions which has fewer people in it, are colder than 10 C.
Canada and Russia having average of -4 C and the coldness in these largest countries, is economic barrier that even with modern technology can be difficult place to live- such regions have limited viable activities which are available- therefore less people are living there.
The crazy Soviets had big plans of expaning settlements in such undesirable regions, and that is related to the Russia Gulag. Which didn’t work out well, in a quite few different ways.

I think this measurement, coupled with that of last month, is very anomalous, and deserves investigation. Where is the driving signal coming from? Is it at specific latitudes or zones? Or, was there a general uptick? Did anything happen to change the measurements? Did a satellite start losing thermal control? Are the ephemerides accurate? Did some floating point value in the computer code get accidentally integerized, and suddenly transition up or down a full value?

It may just be noise, and next month will see a plunge consistent with the ground observations. But, it is worthwhile getting out ahead of the situation, and start sifting through the data for insights. I don’t mean to appear like a know-it-all, as I’m sure Dr. Spencer et al. are continuously combing through the data for quality assurance. This is directed more at the general audience as things to keep in mind when forming impressions of the data.

Observations have to be checked for consistency. These observations are odd, considering that we know La Nina conditions are developing, and the surface data sets reflect this as expected. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it just means they need to be scrutinized.

I concur. I am having trouble finding any time in this data set when warming occurred over 4 consecutive months. There should be a clear reason why something so anomalous is happening, and if one cannot be found, errors are likely present.

Eyeballing it, this appears most similar to the warming from June-Oct 2003 — same time of year, occurred after weak El Nino conditions. Perhaps the magnitude of warming this time around is due to how soon after the major El Nino it occurred and although short-lived, the May-July El Nino conditions were moderately strong (stronger than 2003) according to the multivariate index.

Perhaps the September-October anomalies make more sense than at first glance.

RSS is now in, with a small drop in TLT since September. Interestingly however, their TTT dataset shows a further increase – smaller, but similar recent trend to UAH 6. The UAH weighting function (i.e. with altitude) is now more similar to RSS TTT (since UAH 6 versus 5.6) than their TLT, which is affected more by surface temperatures, so this suggests that some of the recent deviation from surface temperatures results from additional heat in the upper part of the troposphere that is included in the TLT data.

It appears that the 4012 replies have been entombed in High Fells of Rhudaur.
I wonder how many blog post have had so many. The vast number seemed to slow things down.
Looking at it, I see one of my post in still in moderation- no doubt a ghost rather possibly alive.
And elsewhere I was asking about copper cubes and there rate of cooling. No one had answers.
But there was reply:

-bobdroege says:
October 31, 2017 at 11:57 PM

Newtons Law of Cooling.

You Sir, have been schooled.-

Anyways, I was wondering [related to reply] if all would agree that a cube touching another cube [of solid cooper] with temperature difference would conduct more heat than compared to amount it could radiate. Or if you separate them by 1 mm, one gets a lot less heat transfer via radiation.

–absorbed by the entire ocean–
I meant absorbed within the ocean, though another possibility could more was absorbed of which was more immediately evaporated so as to increase global air temperature.

Though might have something to due with hurricanes [as G said] drawing up tens of meters of warm ocean water and quickly dumping it atmosphere. But I don’t think the “more hurricane activity” was much of factor.

Basically I would say we had large El Nino which is a big butterfly.
Effects still echoing.

Because the ocean temps in the El Nio zone are higher. What made the ocean temps higher over multidecadal timescales? Increased penetration of Solar short wave electromagnetic radiation into the ocean, particularly at Tropic latitudes. What caused the increase in Solar short wave electromagnetic radiation at the surface, particularly at Tropic latitudes, over multidecadal timescales? Reduction in low level Cumulus cloud, particularly at Tropic latitudes. What caused the reduction in low level Cumulus cloud, particularly at Tropic latitudes? Unknown.

And why did we have such a large El Nino?–
And:
— GC says:
November 5, 2017 at 10:59 PM —

Why large El Nino? In simply terms, because
we didn’t have much EL Nino preceding it.

I would say the warming of El Nino [or cooling of
La Nina] causing temperature changes isn’t “global warming”
in similar manner that any added heat from a hurricanes
isn’t “global warming”. Or it’s heat relaesed to the atmosphere which will radiate into space, It takes some time
to radiate into space, but it’s basically out the door.

Of course most imagine that warming atmosphere is global warming. I imagine warming the ocean is global warming.
So it’s a bit of problem for me to explain it.

Yes, I would like to see these paper’s that you refer to. I’d be very surprised to read that they were anything but models making projections without physicality, as clouds are poorly understood. Do these paper’s make forecast for stabilisation of low level cloud coverage levels throughout 2000’s?

Gordon Robertson says:
“If NOAA has anything to do with the data before it is handed over, given their recent track record fudging data, it would not surprise me if the UAH data is fudged before passing it on.”

One thing is certain – the anomaly can’t stay this high.
However … I seem to recall saying that last month.
The trend value is only +0.28. And I can guarantee that if the anomaly falls to the trend value next month then deniers will be speaking of ‘massive cooling’ instead of a ‘return to normality’.

Even without a full-blown La Nina, the tropical Pacific IS cooling, and we should expect to see sub-average temperatures by early next year. If a non-weak La Nina develops there is the possibility of negative anomalies, and if it is a strong one we would EXPECT negative anomalies, even -0.25. However, all indications at the moment are that any La Nina will be weak.

If land surface temperatures were to lower by average of 1 C that would big effect upon the already frigidly cool average land surface temperatures, but if ocean surface stays about the same, that large amount of land surface cooling doesn’t have much effect upon average global temperature.

I wouldn’t guess you think land surfaces are going to lower by as much a 1 C, but if it was 1/2 C cooling of land surface only, it’s 1/2 as much “of not much effect upon global average temperature”. And 1/2 C or less of cooling of land surface could also have bad consequences for land dwellers.

The pattern looks like a wavelet and the post cursor. Sort of like the 2016 el nino sequence was: ocean released energy, then major temp spike, then a smaller spike as a post cursor that we see now. What is interesting is this is the only major el nino without a la nina, and maybe the cool la nina dampens this signal. It is fascinating to watch such a high resolution record.

See SOI athttp://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=SOI
Global temperatures tend to lag the SOI by about 6/7 months.
This graph shows the SOI within El Nino range for parts of May through July. I would anticipate a rapid cooling from end January on. Maybe extreme cold end March into April

ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.

“At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the probability of a cooling phase on earth and it seems possible that Cycle 23 is more or less equivalent to Cycle 4 so that a Dalton type minimum is likely.”

2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate – the Geological Approach.

2.1 General Principles.

The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. The value of the geologists’ approach to understanding the past is proven by the trillions of dollars spent by the oil companies to find and produce the millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas needed daily to fuel the world economy. It works!

Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.

a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.

The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.

In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land masses.”
The main deficiency of the establishment scientists is their lack of practice in correlating events in time and space. It is the main task of Exploration geologists – but their interpretations are then tested soon after they are made by drilling wells which cost sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. Academic forecasts are only judged by how closely they follow the “consensus” or the party line.

My forecasts naturally are updated as data comes in.
See eghttps://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
2014 Updates and Observations..
“3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.”

Des I can’t guarantee it but here is what the paper says re Maunder minimum
“3.1 Long Term.

The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.”

The 4 year update made in 2014/7 says Temperature drop in 17/18
My opening comment above says
“Global temperatures tend to lag the SOI by about 6/7 months.
This graph shows the SOI within El Nino range for parts of May through July. I would anticipate a rapid cooling from end January on. Maybe extreme cold end March into April” {2018}

Judging by Norman Page and Donald Easterbrook, a geologist must be at least 80 years old to believe this nonsense. And Salvatore looks like he is at least in his 70s – and that’s from a 5 year old photo. Global cooling is a pastime for old bored retired men who are desperate to make a difference in their remaining time. They desperately NEED to see a sign of cooling to give their life meaning. And they WILL make sure they see it – all they need is a proverbial ink blot and they can see anything they want to.

The positive side of the y-axis on Roys chart already has to be 40% larger than the minus side just to fit the results. You know youre in trouble when youve got to expand the axis because the warming trend no longer fits your chart.

Scientifically, there is a lot of significance. For example, it is a pretty clear evidence of how hurricanes extract energy from the oceans/seas. And that demonstrates one of the ways the Earth can cool itself. It also explains the high anomaly for Oct. UAH.

(Please keep this info confidential. We don’t want Warmists learning any science. They believe CO2 can heat the planet, and we love their comedy.)

Don’t know if you checked out the hurricane season timeline, but October was relatively quiet compared to an extremely active September, so I’d have expected to see very low SSTs in Sept, and higher SSTs in Oct if hurricanes were sucking the energy out.

Is it possible other factors cause SSTs, and hurricanes respond to SSTs rather than determine them?

You may be confusing SSTs with the heat energy released to the atmosphere.

The graph you linked to is an average of SSTs, so it will lag. The SST immediately affected by an individual hurricane will not lag. The heat energy in the atmosphere can take weeks to make it to space.

The Caribbean SST graph was in the first post in this thread, so after you commented that hurricanes sucked the energy from the ocean, I checked out the 2017 hurricane season to see if the biggest hurricanes (and the month of highest hurricane activity) had indeed sucked energy out that region. I also checked the storm tracks to see which storms had passed through the Gulf and when exactly.

The SST chart is a daily SST chart from August to Nov.

For almost all of the period SSTs do the opposite of what would be expected if hurricanes crossing the Gulf were sucking the energy out of it to such a degree it would impact sea surface temperatures.

September values are mostly above 0.4C. October values are on average cooler than that 0.4, and cooled for most of that month, while there was only one hurricane that crossed through the gulf early in the month.

SSTs rose for the period from Sept 13 to Sept 25. Hurricane Maria crossed the Caribbean during the middle of this period mostly as a Cat 5 storm.

Not to mention, the Atlantic is not the only zone where super storms occur. There’s the Pacific Ocean, too. The Caribbean is not the only place where storms track in the Atlantic, so it seems a little narrow-viewed to drill down just to there. I think it’s a bit simplistic to reckon that hurricanes hitting the Caribbean is all you need to know to account for the latest high UAH anomaly.

(Sorry, I’ve had to cut my original single post into bits and lose some – wordpress wouldn’t post a section)

How does water vapor radiate energy away to space? I was under the impression that water vapor merely moves the heat to higher altitudes, the heat is exothermically released at altitude where it cools. The energy itself not leaving the system. I was under the impression that water vapor could not radiate heat energy to space unless interacting with particulates in the Tropopause.

Just looking at the observations. And thnking of the woods instead of a tree. I have no idea if hurricanes warm or cool global SSTs/TLT, or if their impact is at all significant.

Here is empirical evidence that directly supports what g*e*r*a*n is saying.

That’s just one hurricane track for one period. I got inverse results looking at September/October. I wonder if hurricanes make a significant impact on the global TLT. I don’t think that link provides a definite answer (effect could be negligible). I did see the cool wakes following some of this season’s hurricanes.

A check on this would be to gather the SSTs for the Gulf over busy hurricane seasons and check the timing of temp fluctuations. Then for the same seasons, check the TLT fluctuations (allowing for lag?). Then it would probably be a good idea to see if these fluctuations could be found outside Atlantic hurricane season.

The Pacific should probably also be included to get an idea of global influence of hurricanes on global SSTs/TLT.

The Carribean is not the only area of ocean that has its surface cooling over the last few months. I have watched Eastern Indian, SW Pacific (all ENSO zones), North Pacific and South Atlantic all cool significantly over the last to months. I say again…where did all the heat go .
Dr Spencer….is you data able to show significant LT warming in these areas as opposed land areas….or is the mixing to fast.

Looking at that I see most regions have warmed over the last few months, so maybe even if tropical seas did cool, the rest of the globe countervailed. The Arctic (NoPol) warmed by 1.3C from July to September, for example, and the extratropical regions warmed, too.

Not all the areas I pointed out are tropical Barry. My original post was somewhat tongue in cheek…..but with huge areas of the oceans cooling so quickly you have to ask did it move into the atmosphere via evapoation and therefore has the last few months been globally cloudier those temporaily trapping heat within the LT.
If there is a monthy global graphy of cloudiness I’d be interested in a link.
Ren ??

For those who claim that hurricanes can cause GLOBAL warming, here is an analysis of the UAH response to Atlantic hurricane clusters over the past 20 seasons. I have included all clusters of category 3-5 hurricanes that include AT LEAST TWO CATEGORY 4 OR 5s. In square brackets are the CHANGES in UAH anomaly from the previous month. As people are claiming that the October 2017 anomaly is due to a lag from September, I have included the month following the end of the cluster.

Average of all CHANGES in UAH anomaly for the months under consideration …. a massive +0.0005 degrees. In other words there is NO effect, and any year that APPEAR to show an effect (eg. 2004) are just random noise.

“Obvious” comes from an understanding of the thermodynamics of evaporation. The subsequent condensation (rain) releases enormous amounts of heat energy into the atmosphere, which later gets radiated to space. The end result is a net cooling of the planet.

The data you assembled was a good start, as I indicated. But, you must correlate the heat content involved with the satellite data, to find exact influence. For example, the eye pressures might be a good way to compare hurricanes. A reasonable assumption might be that lower pressures cause more evaporation.

Then, you would need to include how long the pressures are maintained. A good check would be to also estimate the amount of rainfall, from each hurricane.

The end result of such a massive study would show the obvious, that hurricanes move ocean/sea heat energy to space. But, the exact details and effects on UAH anomalies would be interesting.

The fact that heat gets dumped into the atmosphere is indeed obvious. That they produce the amount of heat required to cause significant GLOBAL warming is NOT. As no serious meteorologist (INCLUDING Dr Spencer) believes that this anomalous warming is caused by hurricanes, it is up to you and your ilk to prove them wrong. Unless you do that, these claims are mere conjecture.

That would give you a total of 2.64×10^14 watts of energy that is reflected by the cloud. In 24 hours you would lose around 2.28×10^19 joules which is also in the range of the latent heat transfer. It would cause some cooling.

The opening comment of my original post: “For those who claim that hurricanes can cause GLOBAL warming”. Have you not been reading the comments of your fellow deniers? They are blaming the recent high anomalies on hurricanes. It seems we now have to combat deniers with diametrically opposite viewpoints. I am only trying to show that this month’s anomaly cannot be blamed on hurricanes. I am not using ‘global warming’ in the long-term climate change sense.

The difference between the emission curve and the abso….n curve (apparently the full word gets blocked here for some reason) IS due to the greenhouse effect. It is radiation which is not making it from the earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere. Don’t call someone an idiot until you have some idea what you are talking about.

Try this experiment. Get large block of ice and magnifying glass. Hold magnifying glass next to ice block, and piece of paper next to magnifying glass. (Ice block-magnifying glass-paper, in that order) The paper will burst into flames From the concentrated IR from the ice!!

So you’ve never seen an blackbody emission spectrum OR a top of atmosphere abso…..n spectrum then, let alone know how to interpret them. How’s my simple dynamics question going? You don’t have a clue how to start it do you. The biggest lie here is that you have studied ANY physics.

Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for what you do and for your contributions to the science. I know that you work hard to ensure the best satellite temperature data set regardless of the politics surrounding the CAGW debate. Keep up the good work and may your skin forever be thick enough to ignore the ignorance, political bias, and petty arguments that have invaded your blog.

The whole climate debate is primarily about deep-seated beliefs, God or a Prime Mover. Fix the issue? None of us will throw ourselves off rocks to cut emissions anytime soon. I too appreciate Dr Spencer’s efforts to find the actual truth of the issue, no matter where it takes us.

“Emails” were NOT released. A carefully and slyly crafted montage of sentences were cut and pasted to create an utterly false picture of what the emails were saying. Have you ever actually read the entire email?

David,
Wouldn’t that be nice if it were true. Did you by chance read the “Diversity and Inclusion” principles for the March for Science? So tell me, and do try to be honest, does this sound like scientists trying to find the truth or scientists trying to push a left wing political agenda? Doesn’t this left wing political agenda also demand support for alarmist policy changes in the name of global warming?

Nate,
Thanks for proving my point. You are obviously left of center.
Facts aren’t politically biased, they are facts. The alarmism over CAGW is speculative and politically biased and this also effects the skeptics as well. Climate science has been and is polluted by the politics.

Lol is it classic for soneone to say its cold out ?
More classic is that Canadians are for the most part such sheeple .. That they can be convinced to pay more for gas to heat their homes , wih the supposed intent to keep it from getting warmer outside … Lol

And here’s a thought on the “do hurricanes heat the atmosphere?” conversation:

If so, every October in the 39 record would show some amount of temperature bump from tropical storms. These would get averaged into the October baseline. Only the departure in hurricane activity would be noticeable.

In other words, if you were looking for a bump in global temperature following an average hurricane season, youd be wasting your time.-

Yes but 2017 after fairly long lull in preceding years, wasn’t average.
Or as wiki says:
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is an ongoing event in the annual formation of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. The season has been hyperactive, featuring both the highest total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and the highest number of major hurricanes since 2005.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season

And every one higher than Cat 3 got into Sept and lot them going near end of Sept and into Oct.

Or in terms of Sept and Oct temps, getting up to possibly being “measurable” on global scale.

Going to
August 30 03:00 UTC Tropical Storm Warning discontinued All
So in week time starts and ends as tropical storm

And: The storm strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina on the morning of August 24. The tropical storm moved towards Florida, and became a hurricane only two hours before making landfall between Hallandale Beach and Aventura on the morning of August 25. The storm weakened over land, but it regained hurricane status about one hour after entering the Gulf of Mexico, and it continued strengthening over open waters. On August 27, the storm reached Category 3 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale, becoming the third major hurricane of the season.”

And check out Wilma, wiki:
Hurricane Wilma was the most intense tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin on record, with an atmospheric pressure of 882 hPa (mbar, 26.05 inHg). Wilma’s destructive journey began in the second week of October 2005. A large area of disturbed weather developed across much of the Caribbean Sea and gradually organized to the southeast of Jamaica. By late on October 15, the system was sufficiently organized for the National Hurricane Center to designate it as Tropical Depression Twenty-Four.”
???
At its peak intensity, the eye of Wilma was about 2.3 miles (3.7 km) in diameter, the smallest known eye in an Atlantic hurricane. After the inner eye dissipated due to an eyewall replacement cycle, Hurricane Wilma weakened to Category 4 status, and on October 21, it made landfall on Cozumel and on the Mexican mainland with winds of about 150 mph (240 km/h).

Wilma weakened over the Yucatn Peninsula, and reached the southern Gulf of Mexico before accelerating northeastward. Despite increasing amounts of vertical wind shear, the hurricane re-strengthened to hit Cape Romano, Florida, as a major hurricane. Wilma weakened as it quickly crossed the state, and entered the Atlantic Ocean near Jupiter, Florida. The hurricane again re-intensified before cold air and wind shear penetrated the inner core of convection. By October 26, it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone, and the next day, the remnants of Wilma were absorbed by another extratropical storm over Atlantic Canada.

So lasted as a named storm until Oct 27. Start mid Oct made two landfall then ended Oct 27 with a notable feature of developing a small and fast eye. [And being hard to predict- apparently- doing *crazy* stuff].

Anyways, Main article: Timeline of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season:
Aug 18: Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine organizes into Tropical Storm Harvey roughly 250 miles (400 km) east of Barbados.
Ends: Sept 1: Tropical Depression Harvey transitions into a post-tropical cyclone approximately 30 miles (50 km) northwest of Nashville, Tennessee
Harvey was C-4 and Aug 26: 06:00 UTC (1:00 a.m. CDT) at 28.2N 97.0W Hurricane Harvey weakens to a Category 3 hurricane and makes its second landfall on the northeastern short of Copano Bay, Texas, with winds of 125 mph (205 km/h)” And day before [Aug 25] goes from 2 to Cat 4
3 weeks, about.
On Aug 30, “Tropical Storm Irma develops from an area of low pressure approximately 420 miles (675 km) west of Cabo Verde”

Irma becomes a cat 5: “September 5 Hurricane Irma strengthens to a Category 5 hurricane, located roughly 270 miles (440 km) east of Antigua, and about 280 miles (445 km) east-southeast of Barbuda”
and on September 9: “Hurricane Irma restrengthens to a Category 5 hurricane as it makes landfall over the Camagey Archipelago of Cuba.”
September 12 “Tropical Depression Irma transitions to a post-tropical cyclone about 65 miles (110 km) southwest of Atlanta, Georgia, and about 100 miles (165 km) east-southeast of Birmingham, Alabama”
Irma about 2 weeks.

Katia September 6: Tropical Storm Katia intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane approximately 185 miles (300 km) north-northeast of Veracruz, Mexico”
And only a cat 2, and ends:
September 9: Tropical Storm Katia weakens to a tropical depression about 115 miles (185 km) west-northwest of Veracruz, Mexico.

September 5: “Tropical Storm Jose develops from an area of low pressure roughly 1,505 miles (2,420 km) east of the Lesser Antilles.”
Jose becomes a Cat 4
and Sept 12: Hurricane Jose weakens to a Category 2 hurricane approximately 255 miles (410 km) northeast of Grand Turk Island
And ends, September 14: “Hurricane Jose weakens to a tropical storm roughly 520 miles (840 km) south-southwest of Bermuda”
Less than 2 weeks.
Got Lee in here about Cat 3 [I can’t find description

September 16: “Tropical Depression Fifteen intensifies into Tropical Storm Maria about 620 miles (1000 km) east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles.”
September 18 become cat 5
September 20: Hurricane Maria weakens into a Category 2 hurricane about 25 miles (45 km) north-northwest of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
September 24 Hurricane Maria weakens into a Category 2 hurricane about 290 miles (465 km) north-northeast of Great Abaco Island.” [ends description of it]

Anyhow seems like a lot hurricanes which quite strong within an short time period.
Or seems like 6 named hurricanes within month of Sept.
And Cat 3 Hurricane Ophelia in oct
“Hurricane Ophelia (known as Storm Ophelia in Ireland and the United Kingdom while extratropical) was the easternmost Atlantic major hurricane on record. The tenth consecutive hurricane and the sixth major hurricane of the very active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)

I was going to say a bit more compared, because it’s near out season. But then realize I had no clue of that region’s hurricane season, So looked it up, wiki:

Season lengths and averages
North Atlantic June 1 November 30
Eastern Pacific May 15 November 30
And others:
Western Pacific January 1 December 31
North Indian January 1 December 31
South-West Indian July 1 June 30
South hemisphere:
Australian region November 1 April 30
Southern Pacific November 1 April 30https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
They also note average number per region

Anyhow, generaly I think it’s not much affect on global temperature or at most hundredths of C.
Or I think anything to do with land areas, of course with hurricane you have these huge paths going thru ocean areas and going thru warmest part of our world- tropical oceans.
And many don’t reach land, or if few hit US, it tends to many many more don’t hit US.
Or in this case, Vietnam

And considering there are so many regions with hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons, how certain are you that 2017 has had more than normal? How you looked at the TOTALS?”

You mean totals for Sept and Oct- no.
I don’t think they are available- but internet vast and I didn’t check it.

It should be noted I am talking about two months not yearly average global temperature and yearly average “amount of hurricane’s energy”.
And saying could have measurable amount- hundredth of a degrees difference in a month’s average temperature.
And it’s normal to have tenths of degree differences
in monthly average global temperatures.
So possibly measurable but not saying easily measurable.
But in terms of a year, probably not measurable- or similar to rising CO2 level which so far hasn’t been measurable [despite CO2 having a yearly fluctuation- or perhaps if CO2 had more fluctuation within year maybe someone could actually measure it’s effects]

Here’s an suggestion:
“It turns out that the vast majority of the heat released in the condensation process is used to cause rising motions in the thunderstorms and only a small portion drives the storm’s horizontal winds.

Method 1) – Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:

An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.

This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity – an incredible amount of energy produced!

That is 0.3% of the total solar power that strikes the earth’s surface. And when it’s all done, you have a cold patch of ocean that takes about a fortnight to warm up, absorbing heat back out of the atmosphere in the process.

Did you also notice the part of that article where he describes “giving off a cold exhaust in the upper levels of the troposphere”?

That is 0.3% of the total solar power that strikes the earths surface. And when its all done, you have a cold patch of ocean that takes about a fortnight to warm up, absorbing heat back out of the atmosphere in the process.-

Do remember the “record breaking” amount rainfall the occurred in southern part of Texas? Was it more than 3 inches over large region. And reason for it was hurricane didn’t pass quickly thru the region?

And you think that more 10 meter of water depth warms by the sunlight by a few degree within a fortnight of time.
Or take typical swimming pool and and make it 3 to 4 times deeper and having sunlight warmed entire pool by few degrees within 2 weeks.

-Did you also notice the part of that article where he describes giving off a cold exhaust in the upper levels of the troposphere?-

Upper levels of troposphere is what temperature and how much colder than this was the moist “cold exhaust”.
And what does colder air do if in the upper levels of troposphere, do think it could fall down?

RSS4 TLT for October just came out. After a 3 month rise, the anomaly dropped from 0.843 in September to 0.802 in October. It is the warmest October on record for RSS4. If the present 10 month average is maintained, 2017 would come in second place.

Roy Spencer: “you obviously think the satellite adjustments are bigger than the surface data adjustments. Wrong. We worry about adjustments of hundredths of a degree, the surface thermometer people deal with adjustments 10 times as large.”

Given that UAH and RSS use precisely the same satellites and any discrepancies between the two must come down to their “adjustments”, makes you wonder how one data set can rise by 0.09 while the other falls by 0.04 given his statement.

If had two solid copper cubes which are 100 meter cubes.
Which are in space and far enough away from the Sun that it’s not significantly warming them [such orbit distance of Saturn]

And 1 cube is 100 C and other is 0 C
And always facing other on only one of there 6 sides
and they 10 meter apart [and in orbit with each other so don’t get closer to each other due to their small gravity]

Does the 100 C cube warm the 0 C cube [and if so how much]
Does the O C cube warm the 100 C [and if so how much]

These cubes are not being heated by power source.
And due to their thermal mass, I figured that a 0 C
100 meter cube would not cool below -100 C within 1 year- and
a 100 C cube by itself should likewise not cool to 0 C within
one year.

All surfaces of cooper cubes are coated to be like a blackbody surface and this surface thermally conducts the same amount as copper does [it conducts heat pretty good- though not as good as diamond].

Cooper has high thermal conductivity.
Allowing cooper to radiate far more energy than a rock, and it’s denser and has more thermal mass for it’s volume than a common rock.
So a rock surface would cool fairly quickly, but despite have less thermal mass [of same size] it’s interior would remain warmer for a longer period than compared to the copper cube.
Or copper cube will uniformly cool and a common rock won’t.

Copper per kg has 385 kilojoules per K or C degree

Steel is 490 kilojoules per K or C degree
Steel’s density is 8,050 kg per cubic meter
8,050 times 490 is 3,944,550 KJ
Copper per cubic meter is:
8960 times 385 is 3,448,600 KJ
Or copper has less thermal mass per volume, but copper
conducts heat a lot better than steel.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/thrcn.html

Though generally all metals conduct heat better than non metals- except for diamond [and other stuff].

Corrections:
O C cube takes about 1 year to cool to -100 C
100 C cube takes about 40 days to cool to 0 C
And:
“Copper per kg has 385 kilojoules per K or C degree”
should be:
Copper per kg has 385 joules per K or C degree

I did try your challenge. First on the most simple solution of a single cube of copper with dimensions and mass you describe at 100 C (373.15 K). The total solution is fairly complex. I looked at the view factors for what you describe and according to the plot on this link, the view factor between the two faces would be around 0.8.http://tinyurl.com/y8thsgcp

With the 100 meter cube of copper that has a painted surface so it emits like a blackbody rate, I wrote a simple qbasic program to figure it out. I came up with 117 days to cool to 0 C (273.15 K). You had 40 days.

I would have to write a program to figure out the total solution to your problem.

8.96×10^12 grams x 0.385 joules/gram-K. The temperature change is 100 K so the total amount of joules that need to be lost from the copper is 8.96×10^12 x 0.385 joules/gram-K * 100K = 3.4496 x 10^14 joules.

You have 6 surfaces that radiate. Each surface is 100 meters x 100 meters or 10000 m^2. Your total radiant surface is 60,000 m^2.

At 100 C or 373.15 K and set up as a blackbody the total loss at peak temperature is 6.5958 x 10^7 Watts (Joules/second).

To make it easier multiply this by an hour (3600 seconds/hr)
to get 2.37 x 10^11 joules/hour.

At this rate it would take 3.4496 x 10^14 joules/2.37 x 10^11 joules/hour = 1455 hours or 60.6 days. But as it cools it radiates less (which is what my program was calculating for, I was doing it in hourly chunks of time…doing it in seconds takes too long and does not change the answer by any large degree). It will take longer than 40 days for sure and much longer than 60 days since it won’t continue to radiate at that rate as the surfaces cool.

If you check the radiant amount at 0 C (272.15 K) it would take
3.4496 x 10^14 joules/6.8 x 10^10 joules/hour = 211 days. The answer is somewhere between 60 and 211 days. I think my 117 days may be the correct answer for the cooling of a 100 meter cube of copper with blackbody surface emission properties.

I am not sure I will work on your more complex problem at this time. It is interesting though but time consuming.

Norman thanks for looking at it.
And in general to replies:
My number of 40 day for hot to get to 0 C
And 0 C cube to -100 C in year.
Was a rough guess and I thought had to take more time
than 40 days and more than year.
Or allowed for it be to perfectly radiating

It seems to me your numbers are probably more accurate.
And I was taking about the cube(s) by itself.

The question is the radiant interaction between
the two cubes, one being 100 C and other starting at O C.

So now got a baseline how how separately they cool, so as to
compare and quantify the effect of when the two are near each other.

And the cooling separately [or together] is complicate due to the fact that bodies are cubes and will end up radiating as spheres- with corners in them [cooler corners which act as insulating effect]

But in the first week or so this complicating factor should not significant factor.

So you can eliminate such complication by just looking the first week or so [before it gets more complicated].
Or in a week time period how much warming effect is there
on the hot cube from cool cube.

And wanted cubes, because I thought it would be easier then using spheres.
And using the big cubes to provide more time and “better resolution”.

“Take you copper cube of whatever volume and temperature it is, put it in a 3K near-vacuum, and calculate its average temperature after one year.”

If it’s 1 meter cube, it will cool fairly rapidly [regardless of starting temperature, say 1000 C]. But getting it’s temperature close to cosmic background temperature should take longer than a year.
The reason is copper is not conductive enough- though very cold copper might conduct a lot better as compared to room temperature copper. I don’t know.
But you could use material which conduct heat better and get it to being very close to background temperature in a year.
Though just having 1 cm cube could do in much less time.

So I am going to add a greenhouse, because it seems people find greenhouses interesting.

So have two large very large cubes orbiting each other at distance of 10 meter.

And 10 meter gives me more than enough space to put greenhouse
between on either the hot cube or cold cube.
And obviously those living in cold world, probably prefer the cold cube to have the greenhouse.

So it’s going to an 8 feet [2.4384 meters] high greenhouse, which 100 meter by 100 meter [a couple of football fields].
Made from from 2 by 4, 2 by 8, 1/4″ plate glass, assorted hardware, and put dirt on the copper floor. Oh might as well use plywood for exterior perimeter walls. Though not going to add any plants, but some air.

Now if added enough air so the pressure was 1 atm, it would be 10 tons of force upward upon 1 square meter of glass- probably breaking it or it would need small windows and lots of 2 by 4 and 2 by 8 lumber attached to very strong copper floor. The total area is 10,000 square meter = 100,000 tons of force. So it’s only going to be for 1/20th of 1 atm pressure. Which about 5 times more pressure of Mars and the 100,000 tons become 5,000 tons. Though there is not much weight due to lack of gravity, I guess the building materials etc would have mass of + 1000 tons.

So have greenhouse and about 7 1/2 meters above the glass roof is the 100 C cube shining it’s 1000 watts per square IR into the greenhouse.
One could have many question, what air temperature, what’s temperature of the dirt, etc.
You need a pressure suit to be in the greenhouse. Put on spacesuit [and spacesuit are designed to keep you cool enough in space and should work without any modification in greenhouse- though the “A/C” would need to be turned up a bit.
So go into greenhouse and kick away say the 6″ of dirt, and copper floor is 5 C.
The top of dirt should quite hot and there will be heat gradient of the dirt hot surface to 5 C copper cube surface.
Since dirt is hot, the air will be hot and glass ceiling will be hot [though none of it can be hotter than 100 C].

Let’s change things, lets have 100 C cube and 0 C cube and bring them together so there no space between them.
But first, we will keep the greenhouse and bring the the 100 C cube 5 meter closer to greenhouse roof. That should increase the temperature of dirt, air, and glass roof.
One debate how much, but it will increase the temperature by some amount.

Or delete whole greenhouse thing, and move the hot and cold cube so they touching each other.
What happens.
Does bringing the two cube so they in contact increase the average temperature of both cube?

Now said that in roughly 40 days the hot cube [100 C] by itself will approach somewhere 0 C.
So if bring 100 C cube and 0 C together, in 40 days will the hot cube be warmer.
Or can cold warm hot?

Still nothing.
Going back to greenhouse and roof being about 7 1/2 meter from 100 C cube face.
Don’t add dirt.
Then copper floor will be about 5 C, and air [due to low gravity] will be about 1/2 the temperature of copper floor and whatever glass roof temperature is- which should be warmer than the copper floor. So average air temperature might be + 6 C.

This “problem” relates to issue of does a cold object “warm”
a hot object in terms of radiant transfer.

A significant factor is how close the objects are.

A hot 100 meter cube at distance 1 km from cold meter cube will have a small effect.

And if have the two object close together, how much is the effect.

The amount transferred is the amount cold warms hot.

Via conduction heat transfer one can have a lot energy transferred in short period of time.

If you imagine using material with extremely high heat conductivity, then a hot and cold object instantaneously
average their temperature.

With copper 100 meter cubes which are 100 C and 0 C, since copper has fairly high heat conductivity, if cube are touching, this heat transfer can take a few days, giving one object which roughly has average temperature of 50 C.

The hot object is warmed in sense that it will stay warm longer. Or if less than 0 C is cold, and more than 0 C is warm, then it’s warmer.
Though not warmer in sense that 100 C cube “somehow” becomes 101 C.

So if separated the cubes so can’t transfer heat as quickly as conduction can, it’s less of “warming effect” but question is how much is the “warming effect”?

Of course if used two small cube, copper is quite adequate in transferring heat via conduction in minutes rather than days.
And also small copper cube would cool quicker via radiation.

Of course universe is not full of copper, rather it’s full of rocks. But seems to me that two rocks would radiate less and have less “warming effect”.

I wrote a program for both cubes as you describe. I used 0.8 for the view factor as that seemed close looking at the graph of view factors for parallel plates.

Both the cubes will cool. The rate of cooling for the hot cube is reduced after the same 117 days. Without the cooler cube in the vicinity the hot cube reached 273 K in that time frame. With the cold cube present, the Hotter cube was at 278 K after the 117 days. In the semantic debate you might make the claim the colder cube warmed the hotter one since its temperature is higher after 117 days than without the cold cube present.

Both cubes cooled. Because of the other sides the colder cube still cooled even though receiving heat from the hotter cube, it was not enough to offset the loss from the other 5 sides not facing the hotter cube.

Does this answer your question? I can post the program if you want to see it. It does not copy and paste so I have to manually type it in.

LA Nina will solve the up spike it will be called soon, the + will soon become the -, why do people jump all over a data set that shows a small temp spike Jesus ever heard of cyclic temperature variations? Cone back in 13 months and then say ooh ooh what happened why are we STILL confused!

Arguably the current temperatures are still UNDER influence of the brief La Nina in late 2016 and neutral prevailing conditions since. If we consider that the UAH temperatures correlate best with Nino 3.4 surface temperatures with a 4 month lag, the 10 months of UAH data in 2017 so far would be most strongly influenced by the Nino 3.4 average Sept 2016-June 2017, which is -0.24C…. i.e. we have already been in ENSO neutral/ mild La Nina conditions during the relevant period. And we are already well above average…..

Also, la Nina conditions have to persist for 5-6 months before a full la Nina is called. Only one monitoring system has exceeded this threshold for the last 2 months, so we’ll be waiting until at least February for the announcement of a la Nina, as long as the threshold is not crossed back in the next 3 months.

If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming. It has to increase. Co2 is increasing and not decreasing anytime soon. So if it is constant the it isn’t man made. Also We all know .13 Trend isn’t constant. The climate changes Naturally. We know it fluctuates, and isn’t 0. So what is high and what is low. Is .05 degrees per decade normal? So what is a Normal rate of change per decade. Can anyone Tell me what the rate of change of temperature per decade was 1 million years ago, with any sort of accuracy. NO! what about 1000 years ago. No! What about 200 years ago No! not within tenths of a degree and not for decade trend. Maybe after 1850 we could do that and certainly after 1950. Wait… Thats when the anomaly is happening. The anomaly of .13 degrees per decade. How do we know that’s an anomaly? and not within the normal natural cycle. Now tell me what is normal. what is the range. And dont look at temperature charts of millions of years ago. They probably have a slow rate of change and obviously can’t determine the change per decade.

UAH trend on its own is not interesting.
Because satellittes calculations are not reliable.
Just compare the different trend of RSS, UAH or different version.
Also they are not observations of surface temperature and are much more sensitive to variability.

At a point, people need to try to stop being stupid.
Good luck with that.

lewis…”It is much ado about almost nothing. What is measured is 100ths of degrees”.

I agree with you, I just don’t like politically-driven scientific institutions like NOAA fudging data. They will ultimately look might stupid when we have another winter like 2008 and they are showing a record warming year.

Gordon, RSS October anomaly is lower than September. Your concern about NOAA fudging the data nehind a warm Oct anomaly is completely misplaced. The reason for the high UAH Oct anomaly is because of UAH processing.

If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming. It has to increase.–

A common expression was accelerated warming rate. That what’s you referring to.
And basically the 20 year pause, made using the term less popular.
It still a bit popular to talk about an accelerating rate in sea level rise. But Nature isn’t really cooperating.
One could say Nature is Mrs Clinton trying to be president, and messing up the message.

“Co2 is increasing and not decreasing anytime soon. So if it is constant the it isnt man made. Also We all know .13 Trend isnt constant.”
Not too long ago [decades] the trend was much higher.
I would advise not having heart attack if CO2 levels do drop, but not going to happen if .13 trend continues, but it doesn’t mean it *has to* have a negative trend. Or having a pause in “accelerating rate of CO2 increase” would be the first indication, and could see that, soon.
Note that CO2 levels are wavy up and down and EL Nino add more, and not having el nino [the present time] will reduce the rate of increase- I mean more than this factor, in terms of pause. Or I mean, getting to extant of having news headline saying “unexpected”.

“The climate changes Naturally. We know it fluctuates, and isnt 0. So what is high and what is low. Is .05 degrees per decade normal?”
I don’t think in time we had temperature records it’s ever been that high- though you don’t pick the lowest and highest
in 10 years, call it decade trend. Or some like to use 17 year average if talking about decade trend, But longer is better or more meaningful.

barry…”If indeed the UAH Oct anomaly is a problem, are you so biased you cant consider that there is an issue with the processing at UAH? That seems to be an open inquiry for Roy”.

Roy and John have had the integrity to fly in the face of the alarmist scientists based on their data. NOAA has been steered by a dishonest president who ran around trying to root out ‘climate deniers’.

One cannot exclude the possiblity that Spency and Christer spent some much time tuning their UAH model to get the lowest warming as possible, that strange things will happen in the future UAH data due to the use of an unphysical set of parameters.

mickey…”Also, dont you think there is much more room for tuning for RSS / UAH calculations than for surface observation ?”

You mean the surface ‘observations’ by which NOAA slashes 75%+ of their data set then reconstructs it using a climate model using less than 25% of the data? Gives a new meaning to observation, as in virtual observation and reconstruction.

Well because there is more hypothesis behind UAH and RSS calculations view that you need to convert the remote measurement of a very few drifting Sun-synchronous orbit satellites in a temperature field.

I belong to the science tribe. I also think that website like SkS, realclimate are very bad for climate science.

Surface and satellite temp estimations have different and multiple challenges. The largest revisions (by trend) have occurred in the satellite records, but that’s also partly because the record is short. Too difficult to say which is less problematic. And this is another conversation that gets nowhere. They’re measuring different things in different ways. No one here but the blog owner is across the specifics of the challenges facing the sat record. Everyone else is gossiping. The best gossip is based on reading the technical papers and updates, but even then it’s only scratching the surface.

Could have fooled me when you write off state of the art satellite telemetry as out of control bots drifting in a temperature field.

I presume you feel the same about GPS sats. They are just as prone to orbital drift and they have to be synced to land stations running on a different time system. Therefore, according to you, GPS is unreliable.

Go tell that to someone using a GPS receiver. Meantime, you might try educating yourself on the accuracy of AMSU units and their 95% surface coverage, as opposed to the 30% coverage of surface stations.

I should add that NOAA discards over 75% of the data from surface stations and uses less than 25% of the data in a climate model to manufacture the rest. That’s why I think NOAA is interfering in the sata data. It’s their sats UAH gets their data from.

Yes, the sat coverage is 95% as opposed to 30% for surface stations. Better amend that. Since NOAA discards 75% of the surface data the ‘real’ surface coverage is more like 10% coverage.

Furthermore, the AMSU scanners scan bazillions of O2 molecules in one stationary position of their scanners. Overall, the sat telemetry is infinitely more accurate than the surface system with far greater coverage.

It helps to know something about communications systems and telemetry before trying to digest the hard theory on AMSU units.

With regard to the length of the record, the sat record is approaching 40 years. That’s twice the accepted length required for significant change.

Gordon Robertson says:
“Yes, the sat coverage is 95% as opposed to 30% for surface stations. Better amend that. Since NOAA discards 75% of the surface data the real surface coverage is more like 10% coverage.”

you are a stupid person.
First just look at difference between the two last UAH version. No doubt that diurnal drift correction is a problem for these calculations.

Second, from what you tell me, all satellite measurements should be correct view that GPS work.
But I guess you would tell me that sea level is not rising as shown by satellite observations.
You are so stupid.

What should we do with stupid people like you ?
How can we help you ?
Thank you for your response.

Guy Callendar was GHE believer too. Published a paper in 1938 saying temps were going to rise with increasing CO2. What happened? Global temps cooled for over 40 years, while CO2 levels rose. Ouch! As Agent 86 would say, “missed it by that much”.

Gordon Robertson says:
“If hed have been a bit smarter and studied the Little Ice Age cooling, he could have come to the right conclusion. Instead, he looks somewhat stupid blaming the warming on a trace gas.”

SGW 5:59am: “Callendar was wrong for over 40 years..for another 15 years during the pause. That’s almost 60 years of being totally wrong.”

It is SGW that is easily proven totally wrong.

G. Callendar 1938 made no ~60 year or 40 year or 15 year predictions. Table VI shows century length predictions for 20th, 21st, 22nd centuries. With the data for known CO2 emissions, properly baselined, Callendar’s anomaly predictions turned out remarkably accurate, and counting.

SGW’s Callendar clip is not any sort of 20yr. anomaly prediction, see Table VI for the proper century predictions.

Using appropriate Callendar 1938 comparison based anomaly baselines, world temperatures WARMED. They warmed for over 40 years with actual CO2 emissions & right in line with his overall 20th century predictions properly baselined & with subsequent known CO2 emission data.

Strike3 can’t seem to understand the plain English written by Callendar. As Callendar stated in the sentence immediately preceding the quote I gave, he was referring to Earth temperature curves shown in Figure 4. Callendar was very specific in what he stated, and you are ignoring it.

Earth to SGW: You are so confused; Callendar’s Fig. 4 is historical world temperature anomaly (“departures from the mean”) records not predictions.

And you are wrong about the decline in temperatures after 1938, you have to properly compute anomaly using baseline years Callendar used for an accurate plot of future anomaly vs. actuals to evaluate his published work predictive skill.

“..SGW is correct that Calendar mentioned that the next 20 years (from 1938) should provide evidence..”

SGW did not write 5:10am about “evidence” so could not possibly be correct, SGW wrote about Callendar’s predictions “temps were going to rise with increasing CO2”. SGW got the time periods (60,40,15) wrong for these predictions then obfuscated to show another paragraph discussing future “evidence” and Fig. 4 historical anomaly records.

And barry needs to adjust the baselines presently used to those used by Callendar to compare his future anomaly predictions to actuals. When that is done properly with actual CO2, Callendar’s Table VI predictions are remarkably accurate. They are NOT wrong as SGW wrote about Callendar “bei(n)g totally wrong for over 40 years”.

“Callendars Fig. 4 is historical world temperature anomaly (departures from the mean) records not predictions.”

WRONG! B4 does not pay attention to details. The World temperature graph in Fig. 4 has a dashed line which is the “calculated” CO2 effect. The calculated effect and the actual temperature anomalies match pretty well, HOWEVER, after 1938 global temperature cooled:

SGW, as I already informed you, Callendar made no prediction for YOUR selected 1938 to 1978 period. In fact, according to your chart, if you had cherry picked start dates 1942 or 1945 global temperatures cooled even more through 1978.

That might be interesting, but has no effect on Callendar’s predictions being proven wrong as you incorrectly attempt.

Draw your WFT graph 1900 to the end of the 20th century for which G. Callendar did make a prediction. Then adjust for HIS T baselines for correct anomaly calculations and add in actual CO2 emissions (to the historical dotted line noted in your comment) and find his future 20th century prediction came out remarkably accurate.

And barry needs to adjust the baselines presently used to those used by Callendar to compare his future anomaly predictions to actuals.

I derived the results by working with trend (from 1850), which is independent of baseline. Then it was a simple matter of figuring out when CO2 levels were at 360ppm (1995), and comparing observed rise against the temp response given by Callendar (relative to 19th century) for that level of CO2.

Callendar’s figure may have been different had he got the timing of CO2 right, owing to thermal lag in the Earth’s system (oceanic lag). Hard to know for sure, because such calculations are not in the paper, and no way of knowing if he included this factor (he was aware of CO2 millennial overturning in the oceans, but did he apply the same thinking to thermal overturn?).

Nate,
Callendar thought twenty years would be sufficient to give an answer as far as the accuracy of the calculated effect of CO2. Twenty years did give an answer. He was wrong. 40 years even gave a better answer; he was doubly wrong. And you call his ideas prescient?

So what happened after that 30 (not 40) years of flat temp? Best to ignore those 40 + years.

Do you honestly think that ALL temp variation should be explained by CO2? That is a strawman.

Or should we consider other mechanisms for change, and try to fully account for the temp history? This is what has been done in the 80 y since Callendar.

The reality was that CO2 levels began to rise more sharply in last decades of 20th century. Aerosols were dominant in mid century, and ocean cycles played a more significant role. He was not aware of all these processes (eg El Nino!) going on in the climate, that we have since learned (not so surprising).

If you would be interested in reading and learning from his paper, you would see that his ideas are remarkably close to what we find and believe today, even though he had no computer and his model was more rudimentary. Yes, extremely prescient.

When it varies over the short to mid-term in EITHER DIRECTION from the baseline it is natural variation, which is really just a catch-all term for all the NON long-term climate factors. It is the BASELINE which is increasing slowly but surely over the long term. Which is precisely why we should NOT be comparing temperatures at the height of El Nino or La Nina, and we should NOT be using this month to claim this is where the climate now sits.

Please point me to any comment I have made where I said anything like “when it warms, it`s the GHE, when it cools it`s natural variability”. Does it even enter your tiny Trump-sized brain that you are making straw man arguments.

What is this “admit”?? Who cares about the term itself? When I was young I didn’t care that “puppy love” had nothing to do with making love to a puppy. Perhaps your over-literal mind got you into trouble with the RSPCA.

The problem is you’re trying to make predictions as to which way the climate will go. No one knows, as there are just too many variables and potential influences (natural and anthropogenic). Moreover, we’re dealing with such spectacularly small changes in temperature here. It’s silly to make predictions regarding tenths of degrees of change, especially when the margin of error of the data is at least a couple tenths of degree.

It might very well warm until the thermohaline circulation in the northwest Atlantic experiences a beakdown due to lack of salinity at ocean surface, and then… switch to a harsh cooling within one or two decades which lasts for a few centuries at least.

Well few volcanoes in the future won’t prevent future warming.
You will need more…

In particular, a volcano has very small effect few years after the eruption. Just a temporary cooling. It’s like putting something 2 min in the freezer, and looking at its temperature 5 minutes after putting it back to ambiant temperature : no effect. Don’t you think ?

In more popular terms of climate science, besides all poorly known or unknown feedbacks what about the following “feedback” of biological origin; A “nice” nuclear winter as a result of a global conflict due to economic collapse, resources scarcity ( energy and metals), growth of poverty etc… triggered by a forced march towards a mythical “carbon free” civilization of 7+ billion people…

Mickey Prumpt
I’m afraid I have to challenge that one. Toba 75000 years ago dropped global temperatures by at least 10 degrees for about a decade. And when the aerosols went away the ice sheets had already grown by enough to set the ice feedback effect into motion. I believe it took about 1000 years to recover.

And the volcano in the Siberian Traps that set off our greatest ever extinction 250 million years ago was on a different scale altogether. The VEI scale does not begin to describe it. Of course the chance of one of those in the coming centuries is almost zero, but if it came then human global warming would be off the agenda forever.

Ok interesting.
I read it led to a drop of global temperature of 3–5 °C (or more or less) for few decades and may have accelerated the transition to last glacial cycle (it coincided with the onset). It is not thought to have trigger the transition.

Ok for a potential global impact few 100 yr after the volcano, but I strongly doubt it would be enough to cancel most of the GHG induced warming (except of course during the few decades following the volcano).

Which demonstrates only that Callendar did not conceive that near-term factors could overwhelm the CO2 effect. His longer-term predictions per CO2 concentration proved fairly accurate. His global temp predictions for CO2 concentrations @ 330ppm and 360ppm is within 0.1C of observed, for example.

I’ve been reading your predictions here for years. Personally if the difference between my stated predictions of dramatic cooling being just about to happen and the empirical evidence that the temperature is gradually and persistently creeping upwards had been as large as they have been with your own, I would have cut my losses long ago. But I’m heartened that you are at least entertaining the idea that you may well be wrong. Others commenting on this site could also do well to just look at the actual observations. It actually matters very little which dataset you place faith in – they generally correlate strongly with one another except for the strength of their response to ENSO events (which seem to have a stronger influence on the satellite data) and the differences in slope of the upward trend. But even then, the absolute range in empirical observations from the last 40 years is not huge – from ~1.3 to 1.8 degrees per decade.

The monthly anomaly can jump as much as 0.4-0.5C in either direction. Jumps of 0.2-0.3 from month to month are fairly common. By next month, it could be back down to 0.2C and temps could continue to fall from there. Or not.

I suggest you stop making predictions! No one knows what’s going to happen. Any trend, warming or cooling, will only be known in hindsight. By dumb luck alone, someone’s prediction will be right.

I liken this to be analogous to an old saying about the stock market, which is all investors can be put into 2 categories: Those who know they don’t know where the market is going, and those who don’t know they don’t know where the market is going.

Good points. And, if there are 2^10 investors/analysts on Wall Street, on average one of them will call the right market direction 10 times in a row, just from dumb luck. The industry will elevate her to a genius.

ren…”Many new record low maximum temperatures were set on November 3rd in…”

That’s why I think NOAA has been monkeying with the sat record. It has cooled significantly here in Canada during October, as it normally does, and I am sure that applies to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Where is this fictitious warming coming from?

it seems that one more time commenter Okulaer aka ‘I know everything better than any specialist’
– feels the need to teach Roy Spencer about what Mr Spencer certainly will be aware of since many years,
but
– without explaining wrt what the claimed adjustement took place.

And yes: the differences between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6 were here and there quite impressive, even higher than the anomalies themselves.

I remember also a stupid polemic at WUWT last year about ‘huge adjustements’ made on RSS3.3 TLT which in fact looked infinitesimal when compared with the differences between the UAH revisions.

I’m not at home and don’t have the data at hand, otherwise I would publish the corresponding graphs.

Why don’t you publish the findings of Kreutz, another fine German scientist. He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.

He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.

Local measurements in an era of industrial expansion. Kreutz was not the first or last to take measurements in CO2 dense areas. It would be another 25 years before researchers located a pristine site to get the background measurements of CO2. Meanwhile, the ice records have been checked for background levels.

What should give anyone a clue about CO2 concentrations pre 1958, is that since good measurements have been made there have been no wild annual swings, but a very stable increase. Otherwise one would have to be at peace with an incredible coincidence that, just as CO2 background measurements were taken from the Antarctic and Mauna Loa, the atmospheric content miraculously stabilized, and stayed that way ever since.

Gordon Robertson says:
“Why dont you publish the findings of Kreutz, another fine German scientist. He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.”

1. All skeptics aka ‘the true believers and followers’ pretty good rely on Wikipedia whereever it fits to their narrative.

2. People like you and other trolls, basing their ‘knowledge’ on Goddard, Notrickzone etc etc, never will understand yet accept that
2.1 there is no direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures, at best over a whole century, due to the ocean storage capacity of both CO2 and temperatures
2.2 everybody knows that the period before, during and following WW II led to a tremendous in crease of aerosols.

Do your homework.

That you should do first, GoneDumb!

The paper is not behind a paywall at other sites.

I have that paper since years somewhere, but being 3,000 km away from home, I feel no interest in looking for it again.

The usual bs from Bin. You did not do your homework and were left looking stupid. If you have a computer, you can perform a bing search. It’s not that hard, Einstein. I easily found a copy of the original study. I’m not doing the work for you.

Callendar SPECIFICALLY said the next 20 years would give evidence of the accuracy of his calculations. The following 20 years proved him wrong, and 20 years beyond that as well.

Point is, they were calling a definite la Nina (and many presumed a strong one) as early as February, then in May, June, July, August, September, October. ONI values crossed the la Nina threshold in August, which made people even more convinced (if that was possible). The timing of premature celebrations now relative to ENSO thresholds is similar enough.

Amusingly, the only institute that actually called a 2016 la Nina based on their metric is the one that skeptics despise the most.

And whenever a la Nina comes, as it will inevitably, we will see the inevitable fist-pumping because global temps went down for a few months.

Perhaps then we will be allowed to run trends through the 2016 el Nino year, but I suspect the skeptics will come up with a new fudge to try and wipe it out of analysis.

Most indicators point to a burgeoning la Nina, but la Ninas forming at this point in the cycle are rare. Chances are 50-65%* of la Nina conditions sustaining long enough to become a full-blown la Nina.

* This means chances are smaller of neutral or el Nino conditions prevailing over the coming months.

In what specific way are you asking about statistical validity? Could you give an example? Might help people better focus on what you’re querying. Do you mean spatial weighting, statistical analyses and eradication of spurious break points in weather station data, comparative trend results, or…?

This is not an attempt to seek information – I already understand how the adjustments work. It it an attempt to find out whether Roy and other people who claim there is a problem with the surface adjustments have the ability to properly explain what they see as the issues with each adjustment, or whether they are simply reciting mantra. Not sure about Roy, but for most of the others here I am pretty confident it is the latter.

des…”It it an attempt to find out whether Roy and other people who claim there is a problem with the surface adjustments have the ability to properly explain what they see as the issues with each adjustment…”

I have already explained the NOAA scientific misconduct. They receive data from 6000 surface stations globally, discard 75% of it and plug less than 25% of the data into a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to synthesize the data they discarded.

I see your comprehension issues are still troubling you.
My question was about the ADJUSTMENTS. The two main adjustments are TOB and PHA. Please explain why either of those two adjustments are statistically invalid.

These are not global analyses, for example. In what way can I ask for a global record that would help you to understand I mean global?

USHCN – TOB adjustment in the largest, and even Anthony Watts thought that was necessary in his paper (Fall et al 2011).

As an aside, Fall et al corroborated biases in mean/max temps at poorly sited weather stations, and came up with a mean trend very similar to NOAA for the US.

I’ll repeat my question, so there can be no mistake.

With raw data being available for many years, where are the GLOBAL surface temp records made by skeptics? The ones that, apples to apples, demonstrate problems with adjustments to GLOBAL surface records?

I’ve shown you one, with trends higher than Had.CRU. I’ll take it as read you won’t accept BEST under the skeptic rubric of Mueller being a sell-out etc. So I linked to the one done by Jeff Condon and Roman M, whose skeptic credentials are not in doubt.

Do you have anything to say about this? I hope you are not one who ignores information inconvenient to their view.

Do skeptics just have no interest in doing this work after years of carping about adjustments and demanding the raw data?

It should be straightforward to show that adjustments for the GLOBAL surface temp records are spurious. Take the raw data and do the analysis the way one thinks best. I’ve been waiting some years for more of the critics to do this. What is stopping them?

Projection crisis ? The question concerns the validity of adjustments. This question is decided only at the stations level, at the local level and possibly at the regional level but not at all at the global level.

Of course it counts at the global level – this is a prevailing metric regarding global change.

It is well known that there is less certainty at regional or local level than global. Some regions, for example,have poorer coverage than others. Perhaps this is why you are emphasising regional/local?

Should I take your disinterest in global analyses that you agree adjustments have an insignificant impact at the global level?

Adjustments correct events that appear individually in the stations. It is therefore primarily at this level that you can judge the relevance of adjustments and not at all at the global level.

“Should I take your disinterest in global analyses that you agree adjustments have an insignificant impact at the global level?”

Not at all. The global level should also be considered but based on what is learned from the individual data.
One of the lessons is that short series on average or homogenized series have the same characters. It is therefore not surprising that global calculations using short series on average are consistent with local calculations using adjusted long series.

des…”Which of the surface adjustments do you believe is not statistically valid? (And Why?)”

First you might explain why someone like Roy would fancy responding to someone like you. Why would a scientist who expresses skepticism about catastrophic global warming/climate change, based on nearly 40 years of satellite data, want to engage with someone trying to bait him with pseudo-scientific nonsense?

A US Senate committee is currently investigating NOAA for fudging the historical record.

– either he (rarely) first makes an attempt and dares to go into some technical detail and when (systematically and invariably) shown to be plain wrong and fail miserably he readily switches back and just spouts an other part of his general babble, beliefs and ridiculous unsubstantiated indictment against GHE, AGW and scientists.

-or he (mostly) does not even make an attempt, cowardly stays away from fight and just switches to a different part of his general unsubstantiated drivel.

“Subsurface warm water is evidenced by increases in surface water height as compared to normal. Cold water at depth is evidenced by decreases in the surface water height. This data can be used to validate the presence of Kelvin Waves in the equatorial Pacific. Data obtained from the Jason-2 satellite.”

“The green plate warms. But, the back-radiation from the colder green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.”

You keep stating things like this as if they are laws of physics. As if this was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue.

“The green plate warms until it is the same temperature as the blue plate. Both plates then radiate 200 Watts out of the system.”

It is pretty obvious from SB equation that the “standard textbook answer” (supported by a century of real-world testing) would be
P = sigma A (T(blue)^4 – T(green)^4)
= sigma A (244^4 – 244^4)
= 0 W/m^2
If both plates are at 244K, then there is no heat from the blue to the green plate.

Kindly show the equation and the calculations for how one plate at 244K can radiate 200 W/m^2 to another plate also at 244K.

The green plate warms until it is the same temperature as the blue plate. Both plates then radiate 200 Watts out of the system.

The most formidable fake physics I’ve ever seen.

It readily violates even the first law of thermodynamics..;

If both green and blue plate end up at the same temperature there cannot be any heat flow between them. And if there is not heat flow from blue to green plate and the latter at constant temperature nevertheless manages to “radiate 200 W out of the system” it means that perpetual motion exists at last and that in green plate 200 W are created out of thin air.

But course the GHE denying crackpots might prefer to violate rather the second of thermodynamics and claim that 200 W flow spontaneously from blue to green plate at same temperature.

Tim offers: “The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue.”

Tim, if you don’t know how to apply an equation, and your result violates the laws of thermodynamics, you may need to review your “learning”. A colder surface can NOT radiatively raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That is why you can NOT heat your home in winter with a bowl of fruit.

Tim muses: “If both plates are at 244K, then there is no heat from the blue to the green plate.”

The ONLY heat transfer is from blue to green.

Tim, in his confusion, requests: “Kindly show the equation and the calculations for how one plate at 244K can radiate 200 W/m^2 to another plate also at 244K.”

Tim, once again, you confuse “radiate” with “heat transfer”. At equilibrium, both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions, but the blue plate is constantly receiving 400 Watts. Consequently, it MUST radiate 200 Watts from both surfaces.

If you are so enamored with “back-radiation”, are you willing to heat your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter? (Remember, it’s “supported by a century of real-world testing”!

gamma brings in more comedy: “If both green and blue plate end up at the same temperature there cannot be any heat flow between them. And if there is not heat flow from blue to green plate and the latter at constant temperature nevertheless manages to radiate 200 W out of the system it means that perpetual motion exists at last and that in green plate 200 W are created out of thin air.”

Yes, so the net transfer from blue to green is zero. Blue radiates 200 W to the right to green, while green simultaneously radiates 200 W to the left to blue. There is no net transfer from blue to green. Glad you agree.

1) both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions
2) therefore, Blue radiates 200 W toward the right
2a) therefore Green radiates 200 W toward the left
3) Blue absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2a)
3a) Green absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2)
4) Combining 2&3, the right side of blue both absorbs and emits 200 W
4a) Combining 2a&3a, the left side of green both absorbs and emits 200 W.
5) The net radiation out of the right side of Blue is 200W-200W = 0W.
5a) The net radiation into the left side of Green is 200W-200W = 0W.
6) Since there is no net radiation entering blue from green or entering green from blue, the overall net transfer from blue to green is zero.

So you agree that 200 J of radiation leave the left side of the green plate every second heading toward the left — ie heading toward the left side of the blue plate. Where do you think those joules of energy go? They don’t leak out the sides. They don’t disappear into thin air.

“The 200 W emitted is returned. Net is 200 W gain.”
Ah! it seems you are postulating that the 200W leaves green, gets reflected perfectly by blue, and then bounces back to green where it gets absorbed. Is that really your position?

Tim, all the energy is accounted for. 400 Watts into the system, 400 Watts leaving the system. You’re grasping at straws.

Tim, more grasping at straws: “Ah! it seems you are postulating that the 200W leaves green, gets reflected perfectly by blue, and then bounces back to green where it gets absorbed. Is that really your position?”

Nope. Your postulating is a FAIL.

Now, it’s time for you to answer my questions. Can you warm your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter? If so, how many windows must you leave open so that your furniture does not catch fire?

“Tim, all the energy is accounted for. 400 Watts into the system, 400 Watts leaving the system. Youre grasping at straws.”

You are avoiding the space between the plates!

It is not enough to have 400W in and 400W out. The 400W has to work its way through the system is a way that is consistent with the laws of physics. You have 400W enter the blue but only 200W leave the blue (to the left). You have 0W enter the green but 200W leave the green (to the right).

“Now, its time for you to answer my questions. Can you warm your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter?”
No. But that has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The green plate works because it is interposed between the warm blue plate (with an independent external power source) and the cold surroundings.
*Your fruit is not powered, so it is not like the blue plate.
*Your fruit is not interposed between a heated object and the cold surroundings, so it is not like the green plate.

“Your fruit is not interposed between a heated object and the cold surroundings, so it is not like the green plate.”

Actually, IF anger were smart enough to actually use his bowl of fruit interposed between the furnace and the cold surroundings as several inches of added insulation (R value 1) THEN, yes, his house would warm at same thermostat setting. Just like the blue plate does by experiment when the green plate with a bowl of fruit painted on is added to the experiment.

But obviously anger is not that smart in experimental or applied theoretical physics.

Tim grasps again: ” You have 0W enter the green but 200W leave the green (to the right).”

Tim, your reading comprehension is as bad as your physics:

In answer to your 5a) “Net is 200W (incoming).”

In answer to your 6) “200W is being transferred from blue to green.”

And you tried to avoid dealing with the bowl of fruit question, because you know it DOES have something to do with the problem at hand. The green plate receives energy. A bowl of fruit receives energy, from your body. You claim the green plate can heat the blue plate, but you run from the fact that your bowl of fruit can NOT heat you.

So I dealt with it, and, yes, anger if you were smart enough to use your bowl of fruit appropriately as added R value insulation, you can warm your apt. this winter at the same cost of fuel for your furnace.

However anger demonstrates little aptitude in these matters so I expect no advance in understanding or application of basic thermodynamics. I do expect anger will live up to all my expectations.

I spent many posts on another thread with g*e*r*a*n over the same issue. I am starting to see more clearly the mentality of both g*e*r*a*n and SkepticGoneWild. They are disciples of the Cult leader Joe Postma.

When you posted a simple point on his blog he attacked you with a fury unfounded. I would think Postma was a lunatic for his unwarranted outburst but that would not be the case. He attacks people who bring real physics to the table. You threaten his power and control of his loyal disciples. He is in it for power and is a skilled manipulator. His material seems plausible until you think it through. He puts up a bunch of smoke and mirror to deceive his gullible followers. They love him too much to see how phony he is and just uses them for this manipulative power.

This is your rational comment and he attacks it with fury it makes him seem insane. Not so, he is attacking you to show his followers his power and control over those who dare show his phony nature.

g*e*r*a*n is Joe Postma’s bulldog. His goal and purpose is to look at climate blogs, find rational physics presented, and then attack it with his various programmed mentality. The goal is to discredit those showing actual physics. First his uses Joe’s word “pseudoscience” often (not that he actually know what it means or how to use it properly). Then he makes fun of things with his patented “hilarious” (I think Postma also uses this against those who might show his blind followers the truth…Postma is in it for power and control and has little interest in truth or science).

g*e*r*a*n also is super tuned to any spelling error or a math error. He will jump on these to try and discredit the poster. It is all manipulation.

Neither g*e*r*a*n nor SkepticGoneWild are the least bit interested in the truth or science or physics. They have one goal and that is to find disciples on various climate blogs to grow Joe’s Cult. That is why you will never get anywhere with these two. They have a completely different motive.

By interacting with them you speak to the choir. We already know the real physics. They work to discredit you to find disciples.

Not much you can do about it. Keep posting real physics. The people that follow Postma don’t know physics anyway.

Both the recruiters have to be nicer on this blog as they might get banned if they go full “Postma” type attacks. It is there but subdued.

So our beloved hilarious buffoon finally made a decision: He violates the second rather than the first law of thermodynamics.

So sounds the latest news from clown fissics: heat flows between two bodies at same temperature. How does the heat know which direction it has to flow ? Simple it has to ask our
clown fissicist. Depends on his mood.

Clausius is flabbergasted in his grave.

gamma brings in more comedy

I’m jealous. Our hilarious buffoon sounds so hollow and does a so much better job in this respect.

The really sad thing is that you believe yourself to be knowledgeable of physics but make up your own ideas and push them as fact and call real science pseudoscience to manipulate the uninformed.

I asked you on another thread (you won’t answer except for you foolish taunts and the use of the word pseudoscience and hilarious). You said the radiant heat transfer equation does not apply to powered systems. What? Where do you dredge up your phony misleading ideas from.

HERE YOU STATE: The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the radiative heat transfer equation, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved. Thats why the solution ends up with the temperature of the sphere being a factor of the fourth root of 2 (1.189) higher than the temperature of the shell.

That violates both 1LoT and 2LoT!”

Very stupid but might convince some scientific illiterates. You are a phony person and that is what I wrote to Tim Folkerts about. If I see you posting your false and misleading cult physics, I will correct all your flaws and intentionally distortions. You are the Con-Man

It seems you “skeptics” all need to make up your own physics and peddle it on the few sights that allow your material to be presented. A good skeptic would use real and correct physics (they would also know it, which you do not and are not able to learn the truth)

I like how you are an Orwellian double writer. You twist the truth so you label Real Science as pseudoscience (Freedom is Slavery) and you the biggest of all Con-Man call me a con-man when I am most open with the science I post and link to the sources I get it from (which is something you do not do because you are a complete fraud and phony). Hopefully the more you post the more people will see how much a Real con-man you are and how much of a fraud you are.

Tim
This guy has already shown a willingness to boast about his supposed understanding of science, but an unwillingness (read that as INABILITY) to demonstrate this ‘knowledge’ by answering questions with simple calculations that he can’t simply copy/paste from some denier website. Instead he comes up with pithy throw away lines like “hello McFly” to disguise his shortcomings.

Here is a video representation of g*e*r*a*n. Maybe not the one and same person but when I watch this I think I am seeing g*e*r*a*n with his attitude of being so damn funny, so funny he can’t even tell us about it because he would die from laughing. Similar to his knowledge of physics, if he told us about it he would zap his brain from his brilliance (not!).

I guess he provides amusement on what could be a useful science blog and exchange of rational ideas and concepts.

Have you been able to come up with new material? You have used that line already numerous times. Maybe you should take some time to study real physics and see why your arguments are not valid.

An object at 100 C radiates based only upon its own temperature. If you have two plates in a vacuum at 100 C you can’t magically have one radiating heat while the other does not. There is no mystic communication between the two surfaces that informs them that one plate has an energy input and the other does not. Magic physics that you just make up. Nothing in real physics even comes close to your absurd notions of reality. Just like Gordon, you make up your own physics. You both are delusional as you think your made up physics is real and the actual physics is false. Awesome delusional abilities. You can sustain such a state for very long periods of time and even after many people have clearly explained why your thought processes are flawed.

YOU: “The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the radiative heat transfer equation, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved.”

Where do you get this nonsense from? You just made it up and call it good.

Why do you feel compelled to make up physics and pretend you know what you are talking about. You may be 65 years old but your mental age is considerably lower.

Con-man, it is not my job to teach you physics. But if you ever get to actually study physics someday, you will learn that if some equation gives a result that violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you have made a mistake somewhere. It is your job to find your mistake. It’s a learning experience.

In this blue/green plate scenario, the ONLY incoming energy is the 400 Watts to the blue plate. That’s it. There ain’t no more.

And the MAXIMUM temperature the 400 Watts can raise the blue plate to is 244K. That’s it.

So, trying to claim that the “back-radiaton” from the colder green plate can somehow raise the blue plate higher than the S/B value is PSEUDOSCIENCE.

You do not know physics as much as you think you do. You are a pretender and will always be such until you study real physics.

YOUR STATEMENT: “And the MAXIMUM temperature the 400 Watts can raise the blue plate to is 244K. Thats it.”

Complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics. You just can’t comprehend them. You are good at pointing out typos and math errors (surface things) but you are unable to comprehend concepts.

Your statement is completely flawed and not based upon any understanding of the physics of heat transfer. When you rely on your own made up science it will eventually not work for you.

So if you put thick insulation on the opposite side of the blue plate in your understanding of thermodynamics it would not matter, the surface of the blue plate would still only reach 244 K. You have no clue of just how ignorant you and Postma’s cult are.

If only a trickle of energy left the back side because of insulation the front surface would approach 289 K depending upon how good your insulation was. You cannot understand the surface temperature is not some fixed item in a dynamic system (one with continuous input energy). The temperature can rise to many different temperatures.

The only thing your post proves is you really are ignorant about science. You are not right about much on your posts. Sometimes you get lucky and will say a correct comment but it is rare and I would think accidental on your part.

I am reading some more of your Master’s crap physics. You are wrong, he uses pseudoscience quite often. Even in his testimony about himself.

Your Boss: “Q between the Earths surface and Earths atmosphere is positive, meaning that heat is flowing from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Their other argument attempting to explain the mechanism of back-radiation is that making Q less positive will increase the temperature of the warmer surface. This is a complete fabrication and pseudoscience of thermodynamics, and here is where their argument reduces to Zenos Paradox. Q is supposed to become less positive, in fact it is supposed to go to zero, but if in doing so this increased the temperature of the warmer object, then this would also increase the temperature of the cooler object, and then you effectively have Zenos Paradox or a variation on it (you never reach the end because the finish line of Q = 0 is itself running away from you).”

Note the pseudoscience. He is lame. He is unable to understand that the atmosphere is radiating in two directions. Toward the surface and out to space. It won’t continue to warm indefinitely, the surface will warm to a point that the energy it is receiving equals the amount that is leaving.

Here is how your Master twists physics into a tangled loop of nonsense.

JOSEPH: “As for the shells interior emission, it cannot act as heat and thus warm the sphere since the sphere is always producing more power or at most (at equilibrium) an equal amount of power that the shell emits. To raise the spheres temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere, and never more than the sphere. To raise an objects temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it, and the shell doesnt perform work on the sphere and it can never send a net difference positive balance of power as heat to the sphere.”

If the outer shell prevents heat flow from the surface of the sphere (which it would) because of back radiation it does not have to heat the sphere to warm it. The sphere has a heat source. He absolutely demonstrates his inability to understand the GHE. He just can’t do it, neither can his faithful dog (you).

So the shell is not adding heat to the sphere. We all get this, no one disputes it. But the backradiation prevents heat from leaving the sphere (it radiates the same but now is absorbing more energy from the shell…not heat just energy…Heat is NET energy). The energy supply to the sphere is what raises its temperature when the amount of energy that is leaving the sphere is reduced.

You can understand it with insulation but your mind goes blank when radiation achieves the same effect as insulation would do. Lower the amount of energy that is leaving the sphere surface.

And don’t bother, when our hilarious buffoon talks about dishwashing, be sure that for once he knows what he talks about. His mother in law wouldn’t tolerate the buffoon not doing tamely the donkey work.

If the outer shell prevents heat flow from the surface of the sphere (which it would) because of back radiation it does not have to heat the sphere to warm it.

You STILL don’t get it, Norman!

It doesn’t prevent heat flow “because of back radiation”. That is tantamount to saying that the addition of “back radiation” directly raises its U and T, exactly equivalent to what the addition of heat from its heat source does.

THIS is what g*e*r*a*n objects to. And rightfully so. You cannot DESCRIBE the thermal (thermodynamic) process of insulation as one of ADDING energy. That’s a DIFFERENT thermal (thermodynamic) process, called HEATING.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying it does. Same thing all textbooks say. Backradiation is an energy source to a surface.

The process of absorbing radiant energy and emitting it are two different events. They do not have to occur at the exact same time, only overall will there be a macroscopic flow both ways.

Molecules at higher vibrational energy will be the ones emitting the IR away from the surface. Molecules at lower energy levels will absorb IR hitting the surface and translate it into kinetic energy of the objects molecules to be distributed throughout.

You have made up your own physics based upon your own understanding and you never support it with any outside material. I have asked you to support it numerous times and to date you have not.

Here is another example to show how flawed your ideas are (not that you can accept this as proof).

At night I was looking at a tree illuminated by a streetlight. The light was behind me. The energy of the light struck the tree and was reflected backwards toward me against the gradient of the light. There is no coupling of photons into a gas or cloud. There are two macroscopic detectable flows, the flow from the light that hits the tree and the flow of photons that bounce off the tree moving against the original flow and reaching my eyes to be detected. Same with IR. Take an FLIR instrument and have a heated object in the room (powered) that is warming all the other objects. You can stand between the heater and the other objects and point the FLIR at the objects and the energy they are emitting will be detected by the FLIR. There is no merging of photons into a one way cloud that flows only from hot to cold. Each object is emitting its own radiant energy away from it, each object produces its own macroscopic energy flow away from it that is most easily detected by multiple methods. If you were a snake you could see the objects directly.

You have been informed, Norman. Again and again and again and again. But like you say, you just can’t figure it out, no matter how many times it’s explained, no matter how many times it’s spelled out for you. Your obvious full-blown mental block on this particular subject simply prevents you from ever getting there …

No, you don’t. That’s precisely what you DON’t do. You THINK you understand the physics. But you don’t. You simply lack the basic understanding needed to enable you to connect the dots, Norman. I’m sorry, but you’re one of the more persistently and stubbornly confused human beings I’ve ever come across.

“The energy of the light struck the tree and was reflected backwards toward me against the gradient of the light.”

Instruments can detect the spectrum of the reflected light emitted at high T and the spectrum of the light emitted at the T of the tree going into your eye.

Those instruments then detect the amount of emitted and reflected light reaching your eye. For natural objects measured this way order of 95% will be found emitted (emissivity) by the tree and order of 5% reflected (reflectivity) from the tree.

For more reading on the terms: William L. Wolfe, 1982: A proclivity for emissivity. Applied Optics, Vol. 21, p. 1. Wolfe’s parting shot is “On reﬂection, I like reﬂectivity and emissivity”.

For the usual contrarians around here, yes, there is a contrary view: see Joseph C. Richmond’s follow-up to Wolfe’s letter. If the term emittance is to be used at all it is best reserved as an abbreviation for emitted irradiance (or radiance).

Note that radiometric and photometric dimensional quantities(radiance, irradiance, luminance, etc.) all end in ance, and hence in the same spirit emittance ought to be emissivity times the Planck function.

You have not given any supporting evidence for your view. You have stated your opinion many times. You have never linked to an established science source that makes the claims you do. The established science says exactly opposite of what you say.

Established science: Every object with a temperature emits radiant IR. The rate of emission is based only upon its temperature and emissivity and area of surface, nothing else. It does not matter what else is around it, only its own internal temperature determines its rate of energy flow. You have created this merging photon cloud and believe it to be true. It is your own invention. If your idea had even the slightest reality you would not be able to see any objects at all as the photons from any object would not have a unique macroscopic flow that is visible.

Support your claims with established science. Your opinion is pointless and is not believed. I want actual proof of your claims. You have NOT done this at all. You link to your own blog. You have no experimental evidence to support your claims. My ability to see individual objects in a room rejects your claims completely.

“High temperatures in the 20s and 30s F across the Dakotas and Minnesota will fall into the single digits and teens at night.
Anyone spending time outside, especially in the evening or early morning hours, will need to bundle up to avoid the risk of cold-related illnesses. Pets should not be left outside for long periods of time.”

Partly due to the fact that RSS was really late last month, that article is much later than I expected it to be. But if all goes as planned, it will appear on WUWT on Tue Nov 7th at 8:00 AM Mountain Time.
Now that October is in, were you by any chance planning to do a Top 10 first-10-months-of-the year?

I think that oceans covering 70% of the Earth surface, warm the rest of the world. And I think the land surface cool the rest of the world.
Ocean surface have higher average temperature, about 17 C, as compared to land surfaces, about 10 C.

The tropical ocean which gets more sunlight, does most of the ocean warming of the rest of the world.

Other than ocean are warmer and must warm what is cooler, and cooler doesn’t warm warmer, just as starting point. Another thing is the warmer oceans since they are averaged with land temperature cause number of what is the earth average temperature to be 15 C.
Or ocean dwellers are living in a “world” of average temperature of about 17 C, and land dwellers are living in a “world” of average temperature of about 10 C.
Or dweller of the tropical zone, are living in world of average temperature of about 27 C. And rest of world is living close to an average temperature pretty close to freezing- and would well below freezing if not warmed by the oceans, especially the tropical ocean.

So what I am saying so far isn’t why oceans are warmer or why land is colder.
So tropics have higher average temperature than rest of the world, tropics is 40% of earth surface, that warmer region increases the entire class’s average score- or increase the average temperature.
And of course simply because tropics is warmer, it will warm cooler regions, and cooler region aren’t going to warm the tropics- or if “doing anything” to tropics they are cooling it. But generally tropics isn’t cooled much by colder regions- just like a furnace isn’t cooled by the cold rooms it’s heating.
Now, it is rather amusing that Europeans could imagine their “life style choices” could be warming the tropics.
I am laughing too much, I will stop here.

Yes.
The ocean is warm because the ocean absorbs about 90% of all sunlight coming to earth.

Were ocean not absorbing more energy than land or absorbed
an equal amount, simply due to ocean being 70%, the ocean would absorb about 70% of all sunlight coming to earth- assuming land and ocean was equally distributed.
And ocean and land are not equally distributed. The ocean cover about 80% of the tropics, and tropics receive more sunlight than the rest of the world.
The oceans also dominate the southern Hemisphere, and southern
hemisphere due to the axis tilt when Earth is closest to the sun [Jan 4] gets more sunlight. At top of atmosphere the difference is 1,413 watts vs 1,321 watts:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It should be noted that very significant feature of the southern hemisphere is the continent of Antarctica which has average temperature of about -50 C.
The cooling effect of Antarctica is well known and this continent’s location is major factor of why our current climate is called an icebox climate.
To be dramatic, it’s a giant vortex sucking heat from the rest of the world [nearest being the rest of the southern hemisphere]. How it does this is topic of quite a few scientific papers. But quantity of papers should make you assume that the mechanism is well understood. Or you should assume the opposite- it’s a bit of mystery- needing further study, etc. There is general agreement that if Antarctica is cold, the rest of world is warm. Or the opposite, if Antarctica is warming, the rest of world is cooling.
Or the continent itself has no way to warm it’s itself, it must take heat to warm. Or one look at in sense that because it’s so cold, it doesn’t radiate much heat into space so it’s coldest is a global “warming mechanism”.

But really the antarctic is not an oddity, all land surface do this, it’s just Antarctic does it best among all other land masses.

gbaikie…”The ocean is warm because the ocean absorbs about 90% of all sunlight coming to earth”.

That inconvenient truth is omitted from the thought experiment perpetuated by climate alarmists when they espouse their metaphorical theory of the GHE. It’s obvious that the oceans are supplying the heat credited falsely to the GHE.

Without the oceans, even the alarmists admit the world should be 33C cooler. Unfortunately they have gotten hung up on gases that average out to 0.3% of the atmosphere while ignoring fluids that account for over 70% of the surface area.

If the data is solid that October 2017 was as warm as declared, it was the oceans causing the warming, nothing else.

I think in the past there could have been, a significant
geothermal component and I wouldn’t at the present time, rule out some degree of minor effect from geothermal heat.

But in term of the big picture, it has been and is the Sun.

What other source energy could it be?

In regards to possible minor effect from geothermal heat. I say in terms average ocean of about 4 C, it’s likely less than 1/10th of degree, and in terms average surface temperature of 17 C, less than 1/2 degree.

DA,
You are mistaken that solar activity decreased after 1960
In fact the latterhalf the 20thcentury had extremely high solar activity as measured by SSN..
It is now referred to as a grand solar maximum … Unsurprisingly global temps rose as a result ..
We have just recently (last 15 years or so) returned to SS levels not seen since the early 20th century ..

“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming”

“I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen”

“We would actually see the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”

“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming”

“I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen”

“We would actually see the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”

Yes, far into the future. Read the paper. Up until today, the positive radiative imbalance at the ToA is claimed to derive ENTIRELY from reduced OLR (-0.8 W/m^2) while ASR is rather assumed to have contributed negatively (-0.2 W/m^2).

You need to actually read ALL of what is written, Svante, before jumping to conclusions.

And again, the “hypothesis” says that we shouldn’t actually observe a positive imbalance at the ToA from an “enhancement of the GHE”. This would only occur in the event of an abrupt immense increase in the atmospheric content of IR-active gases, like from some huge pulse being injected overnight, the classic scenario being a doubling of CO2. This, however, isn’t what is happening in the real world …

Things which I think are interesting [or not properly measured as far as I am aware]:
The amount of indirect sunlight.

Wiki says at noon clear skies when sun is near zenith there is about 1050 watts of sunlight and if include indirect sunlight
about 1120 watts of sunlight.
By itself 70 watts per square meter of indirect sunlight isn’t going to warm a blackbody by much.

Or lets increase the amount of indirect sunlight to 700 watts per square meter- this also isn’t going to warm a blackbody surface by much. Or without doubt 700 watts of direct sunlight will warm a blackbody. In vacuum – 333.3 K [60 C].
So 700 watts of indirect sunlight in vacuum will not warm a blackbody to 60 C, nor 50 C.
Nor can the diffused or indirect sunlight be magnify like direct sunlight can be.
But I would argue that 700 watts of indirect sunlight would warm water as much as direct sunlight does.
And apparently solar panel can absorb energy from indirect sunlight and make electrical power or solar panel do work a bit if day is cloudy. Plus when cloudy where solar panel are pointing towards doesn’t matter as much as it does as compared with direct sunlight.

In tropics on clear day and the sun is near zenith for 6 hours and would roughly would get about 1000 watts of direct sunlight and roughly 70 watts of indirect sunlight.
And when sun is further than 45 degree away from zenith- before 9 am and after 3 pm, one starts getting significant less direct sunlight- because sun is going thru more atmosphere and diffusing more sunlight, so one gets a higher percent of indirect sunlight compared direct sunlight.
And this also applies when it’s cloudy in the tropics- less direct more indirect sunlight as compared to direct sunlight.

The energy transferred from the ocean to the lower trop occurs in real time. It seems that hurricanes can’t explain the high October anomaly. September should have been much higher if hurricane ACE has a noticeable impact on globall temps.

It’s funny how Roy the meteorologist is perplexed over the latest anomalies but hacks with no background in the subject matter claim it was predictable. He has already stated that it is extremely unlikely that hurricanes have this kind of effect.

its okay with me if you want to disregard the heat energy released by the hurricanes

Warm air in a hurricane rises up through the troposphere, causing cold air to be sucked inwards at the bottom, which creates winds and the gyre. Hurricanes release their heat to the troposphere up to the stratosphere continuously after they’ve formed. The heat transfer from ocean to the lower and upper trop occurs near-instantaneously.

What I’m disputing is that:

1) there is a lagged response in tropospheric temps.

2) the effect is a significant addition to the global tropospheric average.

2) Is the effect a significant addition to the global tropospheric average?

The vast majority of heat energy, that a hurricane “pulls” from the water, is latent heat. The latent heat is not released into the atmosphere until condensation occurs. So, yes, there is a lagged response, just to when condensation happens. At that time, the heat energy is still in the atmosphere. It must then get to space. The current “consensus” appears to be that heat energy, in the Northern Hemisphere is transported toward the pole by the Ferrel cell. This process is largely convection, but conduction and radiation are also occurring simultaneously. The end result is that the bulk of heat energy that was removed from the tropical waters gets radiated to space at a much higher latitude. (Of course, the same action (only geographically reversed) happens in the Southern Hemisphere, for the cyclones that occur there.)

I have seen some evidence that this total transfer time can take up to 3 months, depending on where the hurricane moved, and all of the subsequent winds. So, if you have several hurricanes, close in time, their total heat capacities could definitely affect temperature averages.

Again, you don’t have to believe any of this. I just wanted to take the time to respond to someone that is not behaving like a 12-year-old. That’s rare.

The vast majority of heat energy, that a hurricane pulls from the water, is latent heat. The latent heat is not released into the atmosphere until condensation occurs. So, yes, there is a lagged response, just to when condensation happens.

Condensation is continuous from the time the storm forms, until the storm dissipates over land, cut off from its source of energy. The major hurricanes of September dissipated by the end of the month (Maria dissipated by Oct 3), and that heat was already in the lower troposphere.

At that time, the heat energy is still in the atmosphere. It must then get to space.

The heat energy is in the lower and upper troposphere by this time (some in the stratosphere). By the time the storms dissipate, that energy has already been transferred to the atmospheric zone measured for temps by MSUs. I can’t see a month-log (or 3-month long) lag here WRT to TLT.

The end result is that the bulk of heat energy that was removed from the tropical waters gets radiated to space at a much higher latitude.

UAH TLT is not measuring temps at the point of escape of radiation to space. It is an attempt to measure temps at the lowest possible zone of tropospherc atmosphere, centred around 4km altitude.

You can see this zone and its weighting by altitude in the graphic provided by Dr Spencer (dotted line).

So, if you have several hurricanes, close in time, their total heat capacities could definitely affect temperature averages.

From what I’ve gathered reading around, the total energy fueling a hurricane, even 10 hurricanes, is several orders of magnitude smaller than what it would require to raise the temperature of the lower troposphere by 0.1C.

Have you read anything – with some actual values pertaining to this matter – to lead you to believe that the energy transferred by hurricanes from the ocean to the atmosphere is a significant fraction of what it would take to raise global TLT?

“Condensation is continuous from the time the storm forms, until the storm dissipates over land, cut off from its source of energy.”

Nope. The condensation continues until it stops. Check rainfall totals over Houston area after Harvey. Then follow those totals all the way to Tennessee. The latent heat is being released all during that time.

“By the time the storms dissipate, that energy has already been transferred to the atmospheric zone measured for temps by MSUs. I cant see a month-long (or 3-month long) lag here WRT to TLT.”

Nope. The heat energy will be measured by the MSUs, again and again, until it moves out. As heat energy leaves the surface, it warms the atmosphere. It continues to warm the atmosphere until it moves to space. The sats just measure the temps they “see”.

“UAH TLT is not measuring temps at the point of escape of radiation to space.”

Nope. I never indicated as such. I hope you are not trying to be tricky.

“From what Ive gathered reading around, the total energy fueling a hurricane, even 10 hurricanes, is several orders of magnitude smaller than what it would require to raise the temperature of the lower troposphere by 0.1C.”

One kg of water releases about 2,200,000 Joules, upon condensation. Estimate all the rainfall, and convert to energy released. Then realize that that heat energy must then be transferred to space. That transfer is not instantaneous. Before the energy can move on, more heat energy, from subsequent hurricanes, adds.

“Have you read anything with some actual values pertaining to this matter to lead you to believe that the energy transferred by hurricanes from the ocean to the atmosphere is a significant fraction of what it would take to raise global TLT?”

What do you consider “significant”? From the October UAH global value, it is easy to believe the hurricanes had close to a 0.2C effect. (Remember there was not just Atlantic/Caribbean activity.) Consequently, I have no problem with the UAH results. We just don’t have enough data to accurately predict the exact effect of hurricanes.

“This would be a first order requirement to corroborate your view.”

I’m not trying to “corroborate” my view . I’m trying to help you if you are sincerely trying to understand. At the very start of this post, there were people that seemingly denied hurricanes have ANY effect on UAH results. I know too well about trying to talk someone out of their belief system. How do you help someone that fervently believes CO2 can “heat the planet”?

The condensation continues until it stops. Check rainfall totals over Houston area after Harvey. Then follow those totals all the way to Tennessee. The latent heat is being released all during that time.

Heat is released by condensation (visible as clouds), not by rainfall. Maria, the last big storm of September, dissipated by the first few days of October. The vast majority of of the heat transferred to the lower trop occurred before the end of October, with very little afterwards.

Harvey’s rainfall finished early September. Maria’s rainfall finished in the first few days of October, so even if we measured heat by the timing of rainfall, this activity was done by Oct 3.

The heat energy will be measured by the MSUs, again and again, until it moves out. As heat energy leaves the surface, it warms the atmosphere. It continues to warm the atmosphere until it moves to space. The sats just measure the temps they “see”.

Hurricanes achieve heights of 15 km altitude. While they are running, they are constantly releasing heat into the altitudinal swathe of the atmosphere measured by MSUs as the TLT layer, centred on 4km.

You asked if I was being ‘tricky’ saying that the TLT layer is not measuring energy moving out to space. I’m saying it because you have said a few times that the energy stays in the atmosphere until it leaves to space, implying (as far as I can tell), that the supposed lag is associated with the time at which energy leaves the atmosphere to space.

To repeat, the TLT is measuring the heat of the lower troposphere. It doesn’t matter when the energy leaves to space, because the TLT measurements are measuring heat of the lower atmosphere in real time, and hurricanes are releasing their heat at that level constantly in real time. The point at which this energy is released to space is somewhat irrelevant to the question.

One kg of water releases about 2,200,000 Joules, upon condensation. Estimate all the rainfall, and convert to energy released.

The conversion seems reasonable, but the timing isn’t right. Heat is released at point of condensation, not precipitation.

What do you consider “significant”? From the October UAH global value, it is easy to believe the hurricanes had close to a 0.2C effect.

When you criticise people for having ‘beliefs’ about scientific notions, I’m with you. But it seems that on the question of exactly how much energy from hurricanes translates to a change in the lower tropospheric temperature globally is lacking numerical facts.

Specifically, what total energy was transferred from oceans to atmosphere by hurricanes in September, and how does that stack up against the heat capacity of the total atmosphere, and what effect September hurricane energy would have on the atmosphere.

Remember there was not just Atlantic/Caribbean activity.

I noted the Pacific season was relatively quiet upthread. Also, the Atlantic region, on average, contributes less than a quarter of global hurricane activity. So there’s more math to consider regarding what this means for the global TLT monthly anomaly (with or without lag).

Consequently, I have no problem with the UAH results. We just dont have enough data to accurately predict the exact effect of hurricanes.

We have:

* Hurricane ACE values – regional and global
* Rainfall values, if you want to go by that metric
* Heat capacity of the global atmosphere, and of the swathe measured for TLT temps
* Monthly TLT anomaly values
* Methods to convert energy (joules) to temperature for a given volume

If this is not enough and we “don’t have enough data to accurately predict [post-dict] the exact effect of hurricanes,” on what do you base your confidence that hurricanes have a significant effect?

IOW, if I said that hurricanes have a tiny effect, barely noticeable, what mathematical analysis would you counter with? Are you saying it is not possible to do this because of lack of data (and therefore neither of us can demonstrate our views with empirical analysis), or is it indeed possible to get a reasonable estimation? If yes, to the latter, can you show anything to help?

there were people that seemingly denied hurricanes have ANY effect on UAH results.

The comments I saw did not deny that hurricanes transferred heat into the atmosphere. I saw a few that remarked the effect would be insignificant, including an attempt upthread that dwelt on comparative values in joules.

Such calculations on the effect of hurricanes on the global tropospheric energy balance are otherwise notably absent. Which means the idea that September hurricanes raised the TLT by 0.1C (supposing there is a lag) remains speculative, rather than a reasonably identified fact, backed by actual, numerical values.

I’ll hold you to your criticism of ‘beliefs’ and ask again if you have the requisite data to corroborate the notion that September hurricane energy had a significant effect on global TLT.

To answer your question on “significant,” I would accept as a significant effect from hurricanes on global TLT a value of 0.02C or more. That would be nearly one fifth of the total change from Sept to Oct.

From what I can gather, you are saying that hurricanes are responsible for at least half that increase (0.05C), and possibly all of the increase, seeing as you predicted a drop in temperature, even allowing for hurricane activity. But it’s difficult to tell, as you have not put any values forward.

As I’ve made it clear several times that hurricanes move energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, and am instead querying lag/amount, I think it is you who have become tricksy by avoiding a comprehensive answer to these specific points and reverting to rhetoric.

I am going to take it, seeing as you haven’t given figures for hurricane energy and global tropospheric energy, that you don’t have any information on these values. I see no reason to ‘believe’ that September’s hurricane season added more than a tiny amount of heat to the global TLT. I’m comfortable allowing for the possibility that hurricanes had a significant impact (such as would account for a 0.1C rise in TLT one month to another), but nothing you’ve offered makes that speculation any more solid than when we started this conversation.

Anyway, it’s nice to see the return of your comedy. And, no less with your hilarious attempt at math.

You’re off by a factor of 1000, just by the time you got to the “kg” figure. I was laughing too hard to finish checking everything!

But, if that’s the only mistake you made, the final number comes to 1 Watt/m^2. And that’s probably in the ballpark for just one hurricane. Of course, Harvey produced much more rain than just over TX and LA. And other hurricanes add to the heating effect, within a reasonable time period.

(Don’t let barry see this. His belief system tells him hurricanes don’t warm the atmosphere. So he’s not open to any facts, or logic, to the contrary.)

Yes, I made a mistake of 1000. And thanks for reminding me why I ignore you — you’re invariably an a-hole to everyone.

I don’t think hurricanes have much, if any, impact on atmospheric temperatures, because most of resulting heat will quickly be reabsorbed by the ocean. There’s no support in UAH’s LT data; here are the average monthly anomalies, 1979-present, Jan-Dec:

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01

But the standard deviations are large:

0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.21

so any differences in monthly averages are not going to be statistically significant.

g*e*r*a*n says:
“Davie, the Sun has the effective radiating temperature of about 5800K. It can NOT heat the Earth to anything close to 800,000K.”

Dummy doesn’t even understand the word “if.”

“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”

tim…”The green plate warms. But, the back-radiation from the colder green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.

You keep stating things like this as if they are laws of physics. As if this was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue”.

**************

No, they don’t. Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment. The S-B equation has never demonstrated two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.

Could we put this stupid thought experiment to bed and stop feeding the troll Eli Rabbett? He was proved wrong by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheushner, who replied to his rebuttal of their paper in detail. It’s painfully obvious that Rabbett does not understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic radiation.

Sadly, it seems you don’t either, otherwise you would not be trying to pass off the S-B equation as being related to heat transfer and the 2nd law. The equation is about radiation density and it was written at a time before it became clear that electrons radiate EM while converting thermal energy to EM.

S-B did not know that but they had the sense to admit their equation could not be verified experimentally. There is no inference in S-B of two way heat transfer between two bodies of different temperature radiating to space.

Gordon Robertson says:
“Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment.”

It’s “Stefan,” not “Stephan.” And “Boltzman” has two n’s.

I suspect your claim is another of your lies. (You make so many.) Wikipedia says “the law was deduced by Josef Stefan (18351893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations, using thermodynamics, by Ludwig Boltzmann (18441906) in 1884.”

“The absolute amount of energy radiated by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of the body’s emitted radiation over that simultaneously absorbed by it, the latter dependent on the energy radiated to it from its surroundings. If you, however, have the relationship between temperature and heat radiation established in a formula, you can use this to derive a value for the absolute amount of the body’s emitted energy. But such an absolute amount is only hypothetical in nature.”

Kristian says:
“The absolute amount of energy radiated by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of the bodys emitted radiation over that simultaneously absorbed by it”

Simple – Stefan was wrong about this, if that’s really what he claimed.

Just measure the outgoing radiation — which is exactly what the Planck law describes.

There are experiments on YouTube verifying Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Maybe you should spend some time looking into it before you post you made up physics. You peddle false science a lot. It would be nice if you actually tried to learn something. You won’t, but it would be nice. You are still so wrong about your understanding of the generation of IR radiant energy. It is not from electrons changing orbitals. That is UV, visible, and near infrared. Mid-Infrared (the energy from Earth’s surface) is not created by electrons moving up and down orbitals or changing energy levels. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS! The whole atom, within the molecule, is moving in an electric field. The electrons are all moving with the atom in their same energy levels. They are not moving up and down energy levels when mid-IR is generated. Your false and misleading physics is tiresome.

I have led you to the actual physics multiple times. Yet you are unable to learn. Why is it? What can we do to help you learn? Why do you reject learning true information. Why do you cling to your made up science?

There is always hope he might change and learn. I know it is a lot to hope for. I just want him to get the most basic one right, Mid-IR is not created by electrons changing energy levels. This is the one I hope for. If maybe one item can be corrected, the sky is the limit then.

“No, they dont. Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment. The S-B equation has never demonstrated two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.”

First off, “appeal to authority” is always a weak argument. Simply being smart or being the first to propose a new idea does not guarantee that the person is right. Science generally progresses (despite claims by many that science moves backwards), and thermodynamics is understood MUCH better toady than is was 150 years ago.

I suspect that they acknowledged something like ‘state-of-the-art experiments available at the time could distinguish between net energy flow and two one way energy flows’. It would be interesting to see exactly what they said.

Point a thermal imaging device at a an object, even one that’s very cold. The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).

Depending on the device, this information can be used to produce an image or calculate the object’s temperature.

Kristian can also look at the classic test equipment used in Tyndall’s experiments and the experimental equipment used in the tests Planck references in his 1912 Treatise p. 199 (1). All easily found on the internet.

This equipment was physically detecting two macroscopic one-way “energy flows”. The equipment calculated the net of the two opposing separate “energy flows” in two different ways.

Point a thermal imaging device at a an object, even one that’s very cold. The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).

No.

As always, people sorely need to read up on how such instruments actually work. You obviously don’t have a clue, Snape.

No, for the nth+1 time, the net flux was directly calculated by the classic equipment from the flux of the two opposing macro energy flows (which were the sum of the micro flows). If phi would take the time to look into the classic measuring equipment then maybe, just maybe, phi would not go to the nth+2 time. But I doubt this will happen.

Kristian says:
>> Point a thermal imaging device at a an object, even one thats very cold. The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).<<
"No."

Kristian, it's time for you to do this experiment, instead of spouting misunderstood theory.

But I believe they are cooled to improve detection, they are not collecting many photons, and may use quite long exposure time to also improve the resolution.
Years ago Hubble image of Pluto was 35 pixel also- the diameter of pluto was 35 pixels. It was pretty impressive for that time.

As you’ve noted, this is not to read low-temperature radiation, but to improve detection. The low temps allow for sharper resolution radiation spectroscopy against the background noise of space and prevent local thermal noise interfering with the instrument. In any case, the ground-based instruments are generally at a higher temp than Pluto (10-100 K higher), so if they can only read NET radiation, infrared Pluto should be invisible to them.

Kristian, I can never quite figure out why you are so hung up on this minor point. Mathematically, EVERYTHING comes out the same whether you model thermal radiation as a single flux from hot to cold @ P = sigma A (Th^4 – Tc^4), or model thermal radiation as 2 opposing fluxes @ P = sigma A (Th^4) in one direction and P = sigma A (Tc^4) in the opposite direction. The final answer in EVERY CASE is identical.

As for measurement, get a cold IR sensor, point it at a hot object, and measure the spectrum. When it matches the Planck curve for temperature Th, then I have measured the power (as a function of wavelength no less!) of the one way flow of energy. And when I turn the instrument around, I measure the spectrum corresponding to the Planck curve for Tc. That seems sufficient to me.

No difference in a system at equilibrium for the calculation of the energy balance.

Everything changes out of equilibrium because backradiations depend on the temperature profile which is likely to evolve. Backradiations are therefore not at all comparable to solar flux except to assume the hypothesis of a fixed gradient.

Kristian, I can never quite figure out why you are so hung up on this minor point.

Because it’s not a minor point. It’s THE point. Not the two-way vs. one-way thing itself, but how people tend to TREAT the two mathematically defined hemifluxes in the two-way model – like real, separate thermodynamic entities with real, separate thermodynamic effects. You know this, Tim. So why the feigned puzzlement?

Yes what you describe is exactly what the textbooks on heat transfer state. They never state or imply anything like Kristian is saying.

As you stated look at a thermal image in an FLIR camera. I have done so many times and posted links to such. It is all IR, the lens will not even allow visible light in. You can see distinct and separate objects clearly indicating that each object is an independent radiator with its own macroscopic flux of energy that hits the array and form an image unique to the object emitting that IR. You can see multiple objects clearly indicating each object has its own flux moving away from the object and toward the camera.

Kristin ignores this reality. I even suggested to him to go in a cold room and then turn on a heater. Face opposite of the heater and monitor the objects as the heater warms them. They will start to have a backradiant flux back toward the heater that you can see in your FLIR. They will go from the cold blue color to the warmer red and orange and indicate higher temperatures. Kristian is wrong and you are right. Evidence supports your view, nothing to date but his blog cartoons support his notions. No textbook I have read to date supports his opinions. He calls me stubborn, I don’t think so. I will change if he provides explanation of individual objects seen in FLIR instruments. If he can link me to textbook material from established science that confirms his view I can accept it. I am not changing because he makes his claims strongly and calls me stubborn nor will I change from links to his own blog.

Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“If a person stands next to a 300 F wall, he would feel heat (difference between the energy emitted by his body and that of the wall). Replace the persons body with a 600 F. object, the object would feel a cold chill (net loss of energy) rather than heat.”

The answer is obvious. Every object radiates energy (not heat) according to its temperature. Heat transfer, then, is just a natural result of two opposing, differing, fluxes of energy.

Yeah, that sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Indubitable.

So the only conclusion to draw, the only way to explain Earth’s elevated T_s, then, beyond pure solar equilibrium, is through the addition to the solar heat flux of a separate macroscopic flux of energy (W/m^2) down from the cooler atmosphere to the already warmer surface …!

The warmer surface absorbs this separate macroscopic flux from the cooler atmosphere and, as a direct consequence, its average steady-state temperature rises all the way to ~289K. IOW, you add a macroscopic flux of energy to a thermodynamic system and thereby increases its U and T. Not relative to some other value, but in absolute terms.

“… how people tend to TREAT the two mathematically defined hemifluxes… “
1) The fact that some novices make mistakes is not sufficient reason to choose one approach over the other. A better criterion is if experts actually get the right answer with the method.

“… like real, separate thermodynamic entities with real, separate thermodynamic effects. “
I would say that (within thermodynamics) every flow of energy has a REAL effect, and no energy flow has a separate effect. Only when ALL ‘real’ effects (all real energy flows) are consider, then the effect can be determined. There is a real effect of the energy from the sun to the ground, but this is not separate from the effect of energy from the ground to space. There is a real effect of the thermal IR from the sky to the ground, but this is not separate from the effect of the thermal IR from the ground to the atmosphere. Each energy input adds to the ground’s internal energy, and, once absorbed, the effect of 1 J of sunlight is identical to the effect of 1 J of incoming thermal IR.

“Each energy input adds to the grounds internal energy, and, once absorbed, the effect of 1 J of sunlight is identical to the effect of 1 J of incoming thermal IR.”

At the macroscopic level, the Joule of backradiations is a coooling reduction and not an heating increase.

Once again, the distinction makes sense out of equilibrium because backradiations depend totally on the thermal profile. The equilibrium is recovered by modifying this thermal profile and, therefore, backradiations are modified throughout the process which leads to balance. Backradiations are therefore not assimilable to energy entering the system.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Kristian. I thought you had said that IR detectors (the telescopes I’m referring to are IR detectors) cannot see discrete radiation from an cooler object, because IR detectors can only see the NET exchange of radiation.

That’s why I brought up Pluto. The Earth emits more radiation to Pluto than it emits to Earth. So we can “see” the discrete radiation of Pluto.

If you’re saying something other than what I think you’ve said, my mistake.

Do you agree then, that IR measuring devices can “see” the distinct radiation of objects cooler than them?

“… how people tend to TREAT the two mathematically defined hemifluxes …”
1) The fact that some novices make mistakes is not sufficient reason to choose one approach over the other.

If you want to call the IPCC and NASA “novices” of climate science, go ahead.

You should set THEM straight, not ME. Because THEY’RE the ones using this confusing language, not me.

“Back radiation” (the atm DWLWIR) is an apparent radiative EFFECT of the actual physical mechanism forcing the surface of the Earth to be warmer with an atmosphere than without, just like the sfc UWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the actual physical mechanism forcing the surface of the Earth to be warmer with an atmosphere than without.

“… like real, separate thermodynamic entities with real, separate thermodynamic effects. ”
I would say that (within thermodynamics) every flow of energy has a REAL effect, and no energy flow has a separate effect.

But “back radiation” ISN’T a macroscopic/thermodynamic “flow of energy”, Tim. Only the radiative flux is.

Kristian 5:18pm, that experiment really does measure two separate fluxes of energy, as Tim writes & as did Tyndall’s apparatus. Look it up.

From which the net (heat transfer and direction) is calculated as Norman, DA & Tim et. al. are trying to inform you (without success). Heat can not be directly measured as heat does not exist in nature except in your et. al. heads as a definition.

The earth surface receives two fluxes of energy DW, one LW shining from the atm. in a hemisphere of directions* all the time and one SW shining from the sun only across the sun face during daylight.

*This flux increasing T of surface water was demonstrated in Dr. Spencer’s night time experiment.

If he were in a spaceship between the Earth and the Sun, he thinks he could look toward the Sun and see it, but if he turned around and looked to the Earth it would be invisible to him, since the “net” energy flux is from the Sun to the Earth.

Kristian may argue that you see solar radiation reflected rather than terrestrial energy emitted (but he can correct me here).

I’m more interested in how we are able to see the infrared coming from Pluto with ground-based telescopes when the instrument and its surrounding atmosphere is much warmer than Pluto. In this case, shouldn’t infrared Pluto be invisible to ground-based instruments if they can only ‘see’ the NET radiation?

I’m more interested in how we are able to see the infrared coming from Pluto with ground-based telescopes when the instrument and its surrounding atmosphere is much warmer than Pluto. In this case, shouldn’t infrared Pluto be invisible to ground-based instruments if they can only ‘see’ the NET radiation?

Yes, that’s the level we’re at, isn’t it? Think it through, barry. Is the telescope and Pluto involved in a separate heat transfer? What does a telescope do? Have I ever claimed that photons do not exist and do not fly in all directions?

The IR detector is usually a narrow gap semiconductor device such as HgCdTe that has to be cooled to liquid H2 ( 20 K) or liquid He ( 4.2 K) to operate properly. And such a device detects photons, not heat. The photon in converted directly into electric current, not thermalized into heat. Bolometers that convert incident energy into heat may also be used but must of course be cooled too.

Otherwise the dark noise of the instruments prevents any detection.

Moreover the telescope focuses on the detector a specific bundle of incoming radiation in a very narrow solid angle around the direction of the heavily body which excludes most of the diffuse thermal radiation from ambient.

And finally emission (and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n) from atmosphere of course still perturbs the detection and that’s why air and satellite borne instruments are launched and preferred.

So even cold bolometers (a detector where the heat concept is appropriate) may readily detect directly a one-way incoming radiation flux Ei since the outgoing radiation flux Eo is quite negligible so that the incoming heat flux Q = Ei – Eo = Ei is indeed a positive quantity as required by second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Kristian. I thought you had said that IR detectors (the telescopes Im referring to are IR detectors) cannot see discrete radiation from an cooler object, because IR detectors can only see the NET exchange of radiation.

Thats why I brought up Pluto. The Earth emits more radiation to Pluto than it emits to Earth. So we can see the discrete radiation of Pluto.

If youre saying something other than what I think youve said, my mistake.

Do you agree then, that IR measuring devices can see the distinct radiation of objects cooler than them?

I’ve been reading up on ground-based infrared telescopes. I’ve seen operating temps of the cryo units that cool detectors observing infrared Pluto at anywhere between 30 and 170 K (Pluto is 44 K av).

I think we’re not disagreeing. The cryo units housing the detectors are there to reduce background noise and local thermal noise.

I know we’re not talking about heat transfer. Just about whether IR devices can see the discrete radiation of objects cooler than the instrument. IE, that ground-based IR instruments can see downwelling IR.

I know were not talking about heat transfer. Just about whether IR devices can see the discrete radiation of objects cooler than the instrument. IE, that ground-based IR instruments can see downwelling IR.

They can and it’s much easier than Pluto. They can exactly as we can “feel” the cold walls in a unheated room in winter.

I thought you had said that IR detectors (the telescopes Im referring to are IR detectors) cannot see discrete radiation from an cooler object, because IR detectors can only see the NET exchange of radiation.

There are two kinds of radiometric detectors.

THERMAL detectors cannot see the radiation from objects cooler than themselves. QUANTUM detectors can. However, the former kind operates within the MACROscopic realm, i.e. they observe radiative FLUXES, while the latter kind operates within the MICROscopic realm, detecting individual photons.

So again you’re invoking a MICROscopic (quantum) phenomenon to argue the existence of a MACROscopic (thermodynamic) phenomenon, a phenomenon which is fundamentally different in nature.

Again, claiming TWO opposite macroscopic (net) flows of energy within one and the same thermal radiative exchange rather than just the ONE that is actually observed (the radiative (heat) flux), is purely a geometrical/mathematical constraint imposed on the radiation field by the person analysing the exchange.

As you can see, individual photons of course fly everywhere, in all directions, within the cavity, and they are also all the time being emitted AND absorbed by the surrounding walls. The evacuated cavity itself is filled by what is commonly called a “photon gas” or ‘cloud’ (Bose, Einstein).

Now, if I wanted to, I could mentally/conceptually split this spherical hollow into two halves, two hemispheres, and then simply define all photons within the cavity flying in the general direction from the first hemisphere to the second one as part of a separate macroscopic (net) flux moving ‘en bloc’, so to say, across the cavity, from one side of the wall to the other; and likewise all photons flying in the general direction from the second hemisphere to the first one as part of an opposite – and equally separate – macroscopic flux, moving the other way.

Mathematically, conceptually, such a directional partition of an inherently integrated radiation field, a photon gas or cloud, might indeed make a lot of sense. It simplifies things. Calculations. Analyses.

But it is, first and last, AN INVENTION OF THE HUMAN MIND. It is not an intrinsic condition of the radiation field itself …!

You: “Again, claiming TWO opposite macroscopic (net) flows of energy within one and the same thermal radiative exchange rather than just the ONE that is actually observed (the radiative (heat) flux), is purely a geometrical/mathematical constraint imposed on the radiation field by the person analysing the exchange.”

What? Who would say there are two opposing net fluxes? That would make no sense.

You are seriously misunderstanding the hemisphere thing. It’s a physical reality, not at all conceptual.

If I am standing in a room, I am emitting and receiving radiation in every direction. OTOH, the floor of the room (a surface) is only emitting/receiving energy to one hemisphere, the “upward” one. The other hemisphere is subterranean! Radiation doesn’t fly around underground.

Another point. Place a small object (with a distinct temperature) on the side of the enclosure opposite the viewing hole. Now, from the viewing hole, try to take a picture of the object using a thermal imaging device. Based on your diagram, all the energy between the object and camera would be broken and scattered. If that were accurate, how would an image be possible?

If you are trying to measure IR using thermal means the receiver must be cooler than the source. However, it’s not necessary to detect IR thermally since it’s electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency range. IR can be detected simply as light, by counting the oscillations.

If IR is detected by frequency measurement, it is possible to set up a look-up table in the receiving device in which frequency has already been established against temperature. Detect the frequency, look up the table, find the best fit, and you have the apparent temperature. No thermal measurement required.

I would guess that most hand held radiometers use a look-up table that is programmed with frequency versus temperature. Remember, this is colour temperature not actual temperature. Colour temperature is the apparent temperature a device would give off when heated till it glowed a certain colour.

The radiation frequency is measured using some kind of photoelectric device that varies its resistance with the frequency of received radiation.

The surface temperature is based on energy received and emitted.
A photon can’t strike the earth without moving in a somewhat downward direction. A photon can’t be emitted into the atmosphere without moving in a somewhat upward direction.

Decades of studying and applying electronics, with a focus on communications, gives one a leg up when trying to understand things like IR devices. Now, if I could just get you guys to consider my ramblings about electrons converting thermal energy to EM.

I have no idea, after all this time, what an electron is in reality, let alone a photon, but those little blighters (electrons) are one of the building blocks of the universe. They absorb and emit photons, providing the universe with light.

Radiation from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects and vise versa.

When we measure a change in heat, we are measuring the NET effect of these energy transfers (setting aside conduction and convection for the moment – let all the following happen in space).

Whenever you mention heat you are exiomatically referring to NET energy transfer. When Clausius described ‘heat’ being radiated from both cooler and warmer objects to the other, he really meant energy transfers – photonic level physics was not part of the scientific lexicon or understanding in his time. That would come 50 years later.

The conversation gets bogged down in nomenclature. Calusius spoke of two exchanges of energy as ‘radiation’ (he used the verb ‘radiates’), he did not use the term ‘flow’, which appears to be reserved for NET (macro) exchange of energy.

So whenever you use the term ‘flow’, you are aximotically referring to NET exchange of energy (or heat). Don’t use it that way if you want to talk about discrete energy exchanges.

Bi-directional exchanges of energy WRT to the atmosphere is not a long bow to draw. The atmosphere is a shell surrounding the surface. The surface radiates, the ground radiates. Their radiation influences the other – the source for all this activity being the sun, which also directly influences the heat of, and radiative energy of the atmosphere. Bi-directional exchanges of energy is a simplified way of looking at this 3 body issue. That energy is absorbed/emitted from/to all directions is not rejected, only given over for simplification of the main features of radiative exchange. Here, we are for the present ignoring convection, to single out the topic of interest. We are not rejecting that convection is part of the mix, only that it cancels out (renders null and void) radiative transfer.

I still think we could come to some agreement if we used language carefully. Back to a space-only construct…

Kristian agrees that radiation from a cooler body is abosorbed by a warmer body (and of course vise versa), but beyond that fact is where the conversations get stuck.

I’d put it this way, avoiding terms that cause conniptions.

Introducing a cooler body to a system receiving constant energy may cause the warmer body being kept warm by an energy source, to become warmer.

The cooler body is not a self-generating energy source. It reduces the efficiency at which the energy from the warmer body leaves the system. It does this by radiating energy to the warmer body that increases its energy content, which simultaneously causes the warmer object to emit more radiation to compensate. More radiation = warmer body. These processes are not occurring in discrete intervals, but are continuous.

The energy content of the warmer body may be increased by radiation coming from the cooler body. At all times the bet flow of energy is from warm to cool, but the radiating characteristics of the warmer body change with the inclusion of a cooler body.

It is tempting to say that a cooler body can cause a warmer one to heat up, but then you’re using a word that is aximoatically describing NET energy flow.

Even adjusting language slightly – “A cooler body can cause a warmer body to get warmer” – we are still using adjectives that are functional to ‘heat’, and we are messing the terminology.

I prefer – “The introduction of a cooler body to a radiative system with a heat source can increase the energy state of a warmer body such that the warmer body energy state increases to compensate by radiating more energy.”

I’d also add that the NET exchange is always hot to cold, and that the processes both ways (and indeed in all directions) are continuous, even though we’ve focused on one aspect.

This is the best way I now how to avoid conniptions. It’s not the first time I’ve said it, but as Kristian didn’t correct me on these specific comments the last two times, I wonder if it will do.

I have no trouble acknowledging that NET processes and micro processes are all occurring at the same time. I’d say they were complementary. If I have it right, this is in the neighbourhood of where Kristian thinks others get it wrong.

barry, all of your twisted logic won’t change the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry.

You start off with: “Radiation from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects and vise versa.”

Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects. But, your phraseology makes it seem reasonable, to the un-educated. Of course, I knew where you were going with that statement. You were headed to “cold” can warm “hot”.

And, sure enough: “Introducing a cooler body to a system receiving constant energy may cause the warmer body being kept warm by an energy source, to become warmer.”

Again, you appear to sound reasonable, you even use the word “may”. You try to sound agreeable and non-dogmatic.

Then, you end with: “The introduction of a cooler body to a radiative system with a heat source can increase the energy state of a warmer body such that the warmer body energy state increases to compensate by radiating more energy.”

NO barry, adding the green plate will NOT increase the temperature of the blue plate. Sorry. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT increase the temperature of the surface. That’s what you want to believe, but it is wrong. Sorry.

Before you come back with “prove it”, try to understand that it takes ADDITIONAL energy into a system to raise system temperature. “Back-radiation” is ALREADY in the system, so it can NOT raise the system temperature.

Then, try baking an apple using only a mug of ice-cold beer.

Think that’s a silly concept? A 14.7 micron photon (CO2 spectrum line) has a Wien’s Law temperature of -76.6C (-105.8F). So believing CO2 can “heat the planet” is what’s silly.

Kristian, as well as the people he is arguing with, agree on this much. You (and Gordon, IIRC) do not.

I disagree with your statement here. There is nothing to stop the radiation emitted by a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer one. No magic shield preventing photons being absorbed.

As always, the NET exchange of radiation is from the hot object to the cold one.

This is why we can see infrared Pluto via ground-based devices that are warmer than Pluto and the space through which that infrared radiation travels. If the radiant energy from a cooler body could not be absorbed by a warmer one, Pluto’s infrared radiation would be invisible to these instruments.

I know you do not understand this, but making declarative statements does not make them true (to a cult mentality it will but not in reality).

You make this assertion: “Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects.”

You got this from Claes Johnson. A made up concept based upon some mathematical magic. Not based upon reality. Not accepted by established science. Not supported by quantum physics and surface interactions.

Making up science to suit you may work for your cult members at Joe Postma’s blog but you will not be able to convert real science minded people with your unsupported assertions.

Make up physics all day long. It is what you do. You do not know how to study real physics and learn why you are wrong.

barry says: “Kristian, as well as the people he is arguing with, agree on this much. You (and Gordon, IIRC) do not.”

Do you have yourself a “consensus”, barry? That’s all you need to support your beliefs.

barry says: “There is nothing to stop the radiation emitted by a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer one.”

Obviously you avoided the experiment of baking the apple with mugs of cold beer. Avoid anything that runs counter to your belief system.

barry says: “As always, the NET exchange of radiation is from the hot object to the cold one.”

Yes, 1 – 0 = 1.

barry says: “This is why we can see infrared Pluto via ground-based devices that are warmer than Pluto and the space through which that infrared radiation travels. If the radiant energy from a cooler body could not be absorbed by a warmer one, Plutos infrared radiation would be invisible to these instruments.”

No barry, we see infrared Pluto because of specially engineered devices to get around the fact that we cannot see infrared Pluto naturally.

we see infrared Pluto because of specially engineered devices to get around the fact that we cannot see infrared Pluto naturally

But according to you, if the device detecting infrared radiation from Pluto is warmer than Pluto, we would not be able to see it, no matter how the device was constructed. According to you, the warmer object could not absorb radiation from a cooler one to be able to detect it.

But such ground-based devices (telescopes with imagers) do see infrared radiation from Pluto, and have done for decades. This clearly demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.

“But according to you, if the device detecting infrared radiation from Pluto is warmer than Pluto, we would not be able to see it, no matter how the device was constructed. According to you, the warmer object could not absorb radiation from a cooler one to be able to detect it.”

barry, if you studied the science behind such a device, you would see that there is no violation of the laws of physics. Very specialized materials, techniques, and circuitry must be used to translate the detected IR photons into images.

Simple, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. If you can learn that simple concept, you will avoid a lot of pseudoscience.

The “devices” are engineered to deal with the fact that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. Continuing to run to such devices, to support your belief system, should indicate to you that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. These devices do not exist in nature.

When I first presented the simplistic experiment of apple/cold beer, Norm instantly brought up liquid helium. He knew that the cold beer could not warm the apple. So, he tried to “prove” me wrong by cooling the apple first!

If you try to warm an apple with cold beer, you will first need to cool the apple well below the temperature of the beer, or you will have to get a blow torch to heat the beer well above the temperature of the apple.

Every night, soon as the sun goes down in anger’s world, the earth surface temperature plunges to equilibrate with geothermal energy and deep space at ~2.7K. Added clouds serve to cool the surface at night. Clear sky brightness temperatures are measured under 100K by earth satellite in some permanently shadowed areas.

In the real world of science, observations and experiments show the addition of high cirrus clouds does increase the temperature of surface water over the temperature of water shaded from the added cirrus radiated energy.

In anger’s world: “..adding the green plate will NOT increase the temperature of the blue plate.”

Testing in the real world shows the blue plate (with a picture of an apple on it) at an increased temperature when the green plate (with a picture of a cold mug of beer) is added nearby in its view.

Readers just need to accept anger’s world is simply different physics than physics determined by real world experiments.

A thermal IR detector cannot detect an object that is colder than the detector

Radiation from a cool body cannot be absorbed by warmer body

just a few among the many funny claims of the crackpots.

Of course that’s nothing but crass and blissfull stupidity and ignorance.

A thermal IR detector is called a bolometer and such a device can of course detect a cooler body than the bolometer itself.

Many examples in technology, yet what about this one::

Rattlesnakes invented their bolometer long before any funny crackpot existed on this planet and used it not only to detect preys but also to locate a cool refuge in a hot maze.

… recent evidence shows that the pit organ may also be used for thermoregulation. In an experiment that tested snakes’ abilities to locate a cool thermal refuge in an uncomfortably hot maze, all pitvipers were able to locate the refuge quickly and easily, while true vipers were unable to do so.

anger 8:27am: Actually I and Dr. Spencer have a bag of mundane science experiments, it is the commenters without simple experimental evidence that are hilarious! and entertaining. More please.

Keep explaining how energy is not conserved in the blue plate/green plate being at the same temperature in anger’s world and readers doing actual experiments in the real world like me will keep on laughing at anger’s comments. Hilarious!